OF  PRINCr^ 


BS480  .H685 

Hodge,  Archibald  Alexander,  1823-188^ 

Inspiration  / 


No.  206. 


INSPIRATION. 


BY 

fsoF.  ARCHIBALD  A.  HODGE,  D.D.,  LL.D. 


Prof.  BEXJAMI]S'  B.  WAEFIELD.  D.D. 


REPRINTED,  BY  PERiflSSION,  FROM  THE    "  PRESBT 
TERIAN   REVIEW   OF  APRIL,   1881. 


PHILADELPHIA : 

PRESBYTERIAX  BOARD  OF  PUBLICATION 
A^D  SABBATH-SCHOOL  WORK, 

No.  1334  CHESTNUT   STREET. 


No.  206. 


INSPIRATION 


The  word  "Inspiration,"  as  applied  to  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  has  gradually  acquired  a  specific 
technical  meaning  independent  of  its  etymology. 
At  first  this  word,  in  the  sense  of  "  God-breathed," 
vvas  used  to  express  the  entire  agency  of  God  in 
producing  that  divine  element  which  distinguishes 
Scripture  from  all  other  writings.  It  was  used  in 
a  sense  comprehensive  of  supernatural  revelation, 
while  the  immense  range  of  providential  and 
gracious  divine  activities  concerning  the  gene- 
sis of  the  word  of  God  in  human  language  was 
practically  overlooked.  But  Christian  scholar 
have  come  to  see  that  this  divine  element,  which 
penetrates  and  glorifies  Scripture  at  every  point, 
has  entered  and  become  incorporated  with  it  in 
very  various  ways,  natural,  supernatural  and 
gracious,  thiDugh  long  courses  of  providential 
leading,  as  well  as  by  direct  suggestion — through 
the  spontaneous  action  of  the  souls  of  the  sacred 
writers,  as  well  as  by  controlling  influence  from 
Avithout.  It  is  important  that  distinguishable 
1*  6 


6  INSPIRATION. 

idpas  should  be  connoted  by  distinct  terms,  and 
that  the  terms  themselves  should  be  fixed  in  a 
definite  sense.  Thus  we  have  come  to  distinguish 
sharply  between  Revelation,  which  is  the  fre- 
quent,-and  Inspiration,  which  is  the  constant, 
attribute  of  all  the  thoughts  and  statements  of 
Scripture,  and  between  the  problem  of  the  gen- 
esis of  Scripture  on  the  one  hand,  which  includes 
historic  processes  and  the  concurrence  of  natural 
and  supernatural  forces,  and  must  account  for  all 
the  phenomena  of  Scripture,  and  the  mere  fact 
of  inspiration  on  the  other  hand,  or  the  superin- 
tendence by  God  of  the  writers  in  the  entire  pro- 
cess of  their  writing,  which  accounts  for  nothing 
whatever  but  the  absolute  infallibility  of  the 
rerord  in  which  the  revelation,  once  generated, 
appears  in  the  .original  autograph.  It  will  be 
observed  that  we  intentionally  avoid  applying 
to  this  inspiration  the  predicate  "  influence."  It 
summoned,  on  occasion,  a  great  variety  of  in- 
fluences, but  its  essence  was  superintendence. 
This  superintendence  attended  the  entire  process 
of  the  genesis  of  Scripture,  and  particularly  the 
process  of  the  final  composition  of  the  record. 
It  interfered  with  no  spontaneous  natural  agen- 
cies, which  were,  in  themselves,  producing  re- 
sults conformable  to  the  mind  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
On  occasion  it  summoned  all  needed  divine  in- 


INSPIRATION.  I 

fluences  and  suggestions,  and  it  sealed  the  entire 
record  and  all  its  elements,  however  generated, 
with  the  imprimatur  of  God,  sending  it  to  us 
as  his  Word. 

The  importance  of  limiting  the  word  ''  inspira- 
tion "  to  a  definite  and  never-varying  sense,  and 
one  which  is  shown,  by  the  facts  of  the  case,  to 
be  applicable  equally  to  every  part  of  Scripture, 
is  self-evident,  and  is  emphasized  by  the  embar- 
rassment which  is  continually  recurring  in  the 
discussions  of  this  subject,  arising  sometimes  from 
the  wide,  and  sometimes  from  the  various,  senses 
in  which  this  term  is  used  by  different  parties. 
The  history  of  theology  is  full  of  parallel  in- 
stances, in  which  terms  of  the  highest  import 
have  come  to  be  accepted  in  a  more  fixed  and 
narrow  sense  than  they  bore  at  first  either  in 
scriptural  or  early  ecclesiastical  usage,  and  w^'th 
only  a  remote  relation  to  their  etymology ;  as,  for 
instance,  Regeneration,  Sacrament,  etc. 

PRESUPPOSITIONS. 

From  this  definition  of  the  term  it  is  evident 
that  instead  of  being,  in  the  order  of  thought, 
the  first  religious  truth  which  we  embrace,  upon 
which,  subsequently,  the  entire  fabric  of  true 
religion  rests,  it  is  the  last  and  crowning  attri- 
bute of  those  sacred  books  from  which  we  derive 


8  INSPIRATION. 

our  religious  knowledge.  Very  many  religious 
and  historical  truths  must  be  eetablished  before 
we  come  to  the  question  of  inspiration ;  as,  for 
instance,  the  being  and  moral  government  of 
God,  the  fallen  condition  of  man,  the  fact  of  a 
redemptive  scheme,  the  general  historical  truth 
of  the  Scriptures,  and  the  validity  and  authority 
of  the  revelation  of  God's  will,  which  they  con- 
tain— i.  e.  the  general  truth  of  Christianity  and 
its  doctrines.  Hence  it  follows  that,  while  the 
inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  is  true,  and,  being 
true,  is  a  principle  fundamental  to  the  adequate 
interpretation  of  Scripture,  it  nevertheless  is  not 
in  the  first  instance  a  principle  fundamental  to 
the  truth  of  the  Christian  religion.  In  dealing 
with  skeptics  it  is  not  proper  to  begin  with  the 
evidence  which  immediately  establishes  inspira- 
tioii,  but  we  should  first  establish  theism,  then 
the  historical  credibility  of  the  Scriptures,  and 
then  the  divine  origin  of  Christianity.  Nor 
should  we  ever  allow  it  to  be  believed  that  the 
truth  of  Christianity  depends  upon  any  doctrine 
of  inspiration  whatever.  Revelation  came  in 
large  part  before  the  record  of  it,  and  the  Chris- 
tian Church  before  the  New-Testament  Scriptures. 
Inspiration  can  have  no  meaning  if  Christianity 
is  not  true,  but  Christianity  would  be  true  and 
divine — and,  being  so,  would  stand — even  if  God 


INSPIRATION.  9 

had  not  been  pleased  to  give  us,  in  addition  to 
his  revelation  of  saving  truth,  an  infallible  record 
of  that  revelation  absolutely  errorless  by  means 
of  inspiration. 

In  the  second  place,  it  is  also  evident  that  our 
conception  of  revelation  and  its  methods  must  by 
conditioned  upon  our  general  views  of  God's  re- 
lation to  the  world,  and  his  methods  of  influen- 
cing the  souls  of  men.    The  only  really  dangerous 
opposition  to  the  Church  doctrine  of  inspiration 
comes  either  directly  or  indirectly,  but  always 
ultimately,  from  some  false  view  of  God's  rela- 
tion to  the  world,  of  his  methods  of  working,  and 
of  the  possibility  of  a  supernatural  agency  pene- 
trating and  altering  the  course  of  a  natural  pro- 
cess.    But  the  whole  genius  of  Christianity,  all 
of  its  essential  and  most  characteristic  doctrines, 
presuppose  the  immanence  of  God  in  all  his 
creatures,  and  his  concurrence  with  them  in  all 
of  their  spontaneous  activities.     In  him,  as  an 
active,  intelligent  Spirit,  we  all  live  and  move 
and  have  our  being.     He  governs  all  his  crea- 
tures and  all  their  actions,  working  in  men  even 
to  will  and  spontaneously  to  do  his  good  pleasure. 
The  currents,  thus,  of  the  divine  activities  do  not 
only  flow  around  us,  conditioning  or  controlling 
our  action  from  without,  but  they  none  the  less 
flow  within  the  inner  current  of  our  personal 


10  INSPIRATION. 

lives,  confluent  with  our  spontaneous  self-move-' 
ments,  and  contributing  to  the  effects  whatever 
properties  God  may  see  fit  that  they  shall  have. 

There  is  also  a  real  logical  and  ideal,  if  not  a 
physical,  continuity  between  all  the  various  prov- 
inces and  methods  of  God's  working :  providence 
and  grace,  the  natural  and  the  supernatural,  all 
constitute  one  system  in  the  execution  of  one 
plan.  All  these  agents  and  all  these  methods 
are  so  perfectly  adjusted  in  the  plan  of  God  that 
not  one  interferes  with  any  other,  and  all  are  so 
adjusted  and  controlled  as  that  each  works  per- 
fectly, according  to  the  law  of  its  own  nature, 
and  yet  all  together  infallibly  bring  about  the 
result  God  designs.  In  this  case  that  design  is  a 
record  without  error  of  the  facts  and  doctrines 
he  had  commissioned  his  servants  to  teach. 

Of  the  manner  in  which  God  may  inform 
and  direct  a  free  intelligence  without  violating 
its  laws  we  have  a  familiar  analogy  in  Nature 
in  the  relation  of  instinct  to  free  intelligence. 
Intelligence  is.  personal,  and  involves  self-con- 
sciousness and  liberty.  Instinct  is  impersonal, 
unconscious,  and  not  free.  Both  exist  alike  in 
man,  with  whom  intelligence  predominates,  and 
in  the  higher  animals,  with  whom  instinct  pre- 
dominates. In  every  case  the  instinct  of  the 
creature  is  the  intelligence  of  the  Creator  work- 


INSPIRATION.  11 

ing  through  the  creature's  spontaneity,  informing 
and  directing,  yet  never  violating  any  of  the 
laws  of  his  free  intelligence.  And  in  Nature  we 
can  trace  this  all  the  way  from  the  instinct  of 
the  bee,  which  works  mechanically,  to  the  magic 
play  of  the  aesthetic  instincts,  which  largely  con- 
stitute the  genius  of  a  great  artist.  We  are  not 
absurdly  attempting  to  draw  a  parallel  between 
natural  instinct  and  supernatural  inspiration. 
But  the  illustration  is  good  simply  to  show  that 
as  a  matter  of  fact  God  does  prompt  from  with- 
in the  spontaneous  activities  of  his  intelligent 
creatures,  leading  them  by  unerring  means  to 
ends  imperfectly  discerned  by  themselves;  and 
that  this  activity  of  God,  as  in  instinct  or  other- 
wise, does  not  in  any  wise  reveal  itself,  either  in 
consciousness  or  in  the  character  of  the  action 
to  which  it  prompts,  as  interfering  with  the  per- 
sonal attributes  or  the  free  rational  activities  of 
the  creature. 

THE  GENESIS  OF  SCRIPTURE. 

We  allude  here  to  this  wide  and  as  yet  im- 
perfectly explored  subject  only  for  the  purpose 
of  distinctly  setting  apart  the  various  problems 
it  presents,  and  isolating  the  specific  point  of  in- 
spiration, with  which  we,  as  well  as  the  Church 
in  general,  are  more  particularly  interested.   All 


12  INSPIRATION. 

parties  of  believers  admit  that  ihia  genesis  of 
Holy  Scripture  was  the  result  of  the  co-operation, 
in  various  ways,  of  the  ageney  of  men  and  the 
agency  of  God. 

The  human  agency,  both  in  the  histories  out 
of  which  the  Scriptures  sprang,  and  in  their  im- 
mediate composition  and  inscription,  is  every- 
where apparent,  and  gives  substance  -and  form 
to  the  entire  collection  of  writings.  It  is  not 
merely  in  the  matter  of  verbal  expression  or  lit- 
erary composition  that  the  personal  idiosyncra- 
sies of  each  author  are  freely  manifested  by  the 
untrammeled  play  of  all  his  faculties,  but  the 
very  substance  of  what  they  write  is  evidently 
for  the  most  part  the  product  of  their  own  men- 
tal and  spiritual  activities.  This  is  true  except 
in  that  comparatively  small  element  of  the  whole 
body  of  sacred  writing  in  which  the  human  au- 
thors simply  report  the  word  of  God  objectively 
communicated,  or,  as  in  some  of  the  prophecies, 
they  wrote  by  divine  dictation.  As  the  general 
characteristic  of  all  their  work,  each  writer  was 
put  to  that  special  part  of  the  general  work  for 
which  he  alone  was  adapted  by  his  original  en- 
dowments, education,  special  information  and 
providential  position.  Each  drew  from  the  stores 
of  his  own  original  information,  from  the  contri- 
butions of  oth^  men  and  from  all  other  natural 


t 
INSPIRATION.  13 

sources.  Each  sought  knowledge,  like  all  other 
authors,  from  the  use  of  his  owd  natural  facul- 
ties of  thought  and  feeling,  of  intuition  and  of 
-logical  inference,  of  memory  and  imagination, 
and  of  religious  experience.  Each  gave  evi- 
dence of  his  own  special  limitations  of  knowl- 
edge and  mental  power,  and  of  his  personal 
defects  as  well  as  of  his  powers.  Each  wrote 
upon  a  definite  occasion,  under  special  historic- 
ally grouped  circumstances,  from  his  own  stand- 
point in  the  progressively  unfolded  plan  of 
redemption,  and  each  made"  his  own  special 
contribution  to  the  fabric  of  God's  word. 

The  divine  agency,  although  originating  in  a 
different  source,  yet  emerges  into  the  effect  very 
much  through  the  same  channels.  The  Script- 
ures have  been  generated,  as  the  plan  of  redemp- 
tion has  been  evolved,  through  an  historic  process. 
From  the  beginning  God  has  dealt  with  man  in 
the  concrete,  by  self-manifestations  and  transac- 
tions. The  revelation  proceeds  from  facts  to  ideas, 
and  has  been  gradually  unfolded  as  the  prepa- 
ration for  the  execution  of  the  work  of  redemp- 
tion has  advanced  through  its  successive  stages. 
The  general  providence  unfolding  this  plan  has 
always  been  divine,  yet  has  also  been  largely 
natural  in  its  method,  while  specially  directed  to 
it"  ends,  and  at  the  same  time  surcharged  along 
2 


14  INSPIEATION. 

portions  of  its  line,  especially  at  the  beginning 
and  at  great  crises,  with  the  supernatural,  as  a 
cloud  is  surcharged  with  electricity.  There  were 
divine  voices,  appearances,  covenants,  supernat- 
ural communications  and  interventions — the  in- 
troduction of  new  institutions,  and  their  growth 
under  special  providential  conditions.  The 
prophet  of  God  was  sent  with  special  revela- 
tions and  authority  at  particular  junctures  to 
gather  and  interpret  the  lessons  of  the  past,  and 
to  add  to  them  lessons  springing  out  of  the  prov- 
idential conditions  of  the  present.  The  Script 
ures  were  generated  through  sixteen  centuries  cf 
this  divinely-regulated  concurrence  of  God  and 
mftn^of  the  natural  and  the  supernatural,  of  rea- 
son and  revelation,  of  providence  and  grace. 
They  are  an  organism  consisting  of  many  parts, 
each  adjusted  to  all  the  rest,  as  the  "  many  mem- 
bers "  to  the  "  one  body."  Each  sacred  writer  was 
by  God  specially  formed,  endowed,  educated, 
providentially  conditioned,  and  then  supplied 
with  knowledge  naturally,  supernaturally  or  spir- 
itually conveyed,  so  that  he,  and  he  alone,  could, 
and  freely  would,  produce  his  allotted  part. 
Thus  God  predetermined  all  the  matter  and  form 
of  the  several  books  largely  by  the  formation 
and  training  of  the  several  authors,  as  an  organ- 
ist determines  the  character  of  his  music  as  much 


INSPIRATION.  15 

when  he  builds  his  organ  and  when  he  tunes  hi? 
pipes  as  when  he  plays  his  keys.  Each  writei 
also  is  put  providentially  at  the  very  point  of 
view  in  the  general  progress  of  revelation  to 
which  his  part  assigns  him.  •  He  inherits  all  the 
contributions  of  the  past.  He  is  brought  into 
place  and  set  to  work  at  definite  providential 
junctures,  the  occasion  affording  him  object  and 
motive,  giving  form  to  the  writing  God  appoints 
him  to  execute. 

The  Bible,  moreover,  being  a  work  of  the 
Spirit  for  spiritual  ends,  each  writer  was  pre- 
pared precisely  for  his  part  in  the  work  by  the 
personal  dealings  of  the  Holy  Spirit  with  his 
soul.  Spiritual  illumination  is  very  different 
from  either  revelation  or  inspiration,  and  yet  it 
had,  under  the  providence  of  God,  a  large  share 
in  the  genesis  of  Scripture,  contributing  to  it  a 
portion  of  that  divine  element  which  makes  it 
the  word  of  God.  The  Psalms  are  divinely- 
inspired  records  of  the  religious  experience  of 
their  writers,  and  are  by  God  himself  author- 
itatively set  forth  as  typical  and  exemplary  foi 
all  men  for  ever.  Paul  and  John  and  Petei 
largely  drew  upon  the  resources  and  followed  the 
lines  of  their  own  personal  religious  experience 
in  the  intuitional  or  the  logical  development  of 
their  doctrine ;  and  their  experience  had,  of  course, 


16  INSPIRATION. 

been  previously  divinely  determined  for  that  very 
purpose.  And  in  determining  their  religious 
experience  God  so  far  forth  determined  their 
contributions  to  Scripture.  And  he  furnished 
each  of  the  sacred  writers,  in  addition  to  that 
which  came  to  him  through  natural  channels, 
all  the  knowledge  needed  for  his  appointed  task, 
either  by  vision,  suggestion,  dictation  or  eleva- 
tion of  faculty,  or  otherwise,  according  to  his 
will.  The  natural  knowledge  came  from  all 
sources,  as  traditions,  documents,  testimonies, 
personal  observations  and  recollections — by 
means  also  of  intuitions,  logical  processes  of 
thought,  feeling,  experience,  etc. ;  and  yet  all 
were  alike  under  the  general  direction  of  God's 
providence.  The  supernatural  knowledge  be- 
came confluent  with  the  natural  in  a  manner 
which  violated  no  law  of  reason  or  of  freedom. 
And  throughout  the  whole  of  his  work  the  Holy 
Spirit  was  present,  causing  his  energies  to  flow 
into  the  spontaneous  exercises  of  the  writer's  fac- 
ulties, elevating  and  directing  where  need  be, 
and  everywhere  securing  the  errorless  expres- 
sion in  language  of  the  thought  designed  by 
God.  This  last  element  is  what  we  call  "  Iiispi- 
ratiou." 

In  all  this  process,  except  in  a  small  elemeni 
of  prophecy,  it  is  evident  that  as  the  sacred  writers 


INSPIRATION.  17 

were  [ree  and  active  iu  their  thinking  and  in  the 
expression  of  their  thoughts,  so  they  were  con- 
scious of  what  they  were  doing,  of  what  their 
words  meant,  and  of  the  design  of  their  utter- 
ance. Yet,  even  then,  it  is  no  less  evident  that 
they  all,  like  other  free  instruments  of  Prov- 
idence, "  builded  better  than  they  knew."  The 
meanings  of  their  words,  the  bearing  of  the  prin- 
ciples they  taught,  of  the  facts  they  narrated, 
and  the  relation  of  their  own  part  to  the  great 
organism  of  divine  revelation,  while  luminous  to 
their  own  consciousness,  yet  reached  out  into  in- 
finitely wider  horizons  than  those  penetrated  by 
any  thought  of  theirs. 

STATEMENT   OF   THE   DOCTRINE. 

During  the  entire  history  of  Christian  theol- 
ogy the  word  "Inspiration"  has  been  used  to 
express  either  some  or  all  of  the  activities  of 
God  co-operating  with  its  human  authoi-s  in  the 
genesis  of  Holy  Scripture.  We  prefer  to  use  it 
in  the  single  sense  of  God's  continued  work  of 
superintendence,  by  which,  his  providential,  gra- 
cious and  supernatural  contributions  having  been 
presupposed,  he  presided  over  the  sacred  writers 
in  their  entire  work  of  writing,  with  the  design 
and  effect  of  rendering  that  writing  an  errorless 
record  of  the  matters  he  designed  them  to  com- 
2» 


18  INSPIRATION. 

municate,  and  hence  constituting  the  entire  vol- 
ume in  all  its  parts  the  word  of  God  to  us. 

While  we  have  restricted  the  word  "  Inspira- 
tion "  to  a  narrower  sphere  than  that  in  which 
it  has  been  used  by  many  in  the  past,  neverthe- 
less we  are  certain  that  the  above  statement  of 
the  divine  origin  and  infallibility  of  Scripture 
accurately  expresses  the  faith  of  the  Christian 
Church  from  the  first.  Still,  several  points  re- 
main to  be  more  particularly  considered,  con- 
cerning which  some  difference  of  opinion  at  pres- 
ent prevails. 

First  Is  it  proper  to  call  this  inspiration  "  plen- 
ary "  ?  This  word,  which  has  often  been  made 
the  occasion  of  strife,  is  in  itself  indefinite,  and 
its  use  contributes  nothing  either  to  the  precision 
or  the  emphasis  of  the  definition.  The  word 
means  simply  "  full,"  "  complete,"  perfectly  ade- 
quate for  the  attainment  of  the  end  designed, 
whatever  that  might  have  been.  There  ought 
not  to  be  on  any  side  any  hesitancy  to  affirm  this 
of  the  books  of  the  Bible. 

Second.  Can  this  inspiration  be  properly  said 
to  be  "  verbal "  ?  The  objection  to  the  applica- 
tion of  this  predicate  to  inspiration  is  urged 
upon  three  distinct  grounds : 

.  (1.)  We  believe  that  the  great  majority  of 
those  who  object  to  the  affirmation  that  inspira* 


INSPIKATION.  19 

tk/n  is  verbal  are  impelled  thereto  by  a  feeling, 
more  or  less  definite,  that  the  phrase  implies  that 
inspiration  is,  in  its  essence,  a  process  of  verbal 
dictation,  or  that,  at  least  in  some  way,  the  reve- 
lation of  the  thought  or  the  inspiration  of  the 
writer  was  by  means  of  the  control  which  God 
exercised  over  his  words.  And  there  is  the  more 
excuse  for  this  misapprehension  because  of  the 
extremely  mechanical  conceptions  of  inspiration 
maintained  by  many  former  advocates  of  the  use 
of  this  term  "verbal."  This  view,  however,  we 
repudiate  as  earnestly  as  any  of  those  who  object 
to  the  language  in  question.  At  the  present  time 
the  advocates  of  the  strictest  doctrine  of  inspira- 
tion in  insisting  that  it  is  verbal  do  not  mean 
jbhat  in  any  way  the  thoughts  were  inspired  by 
means  of  the  words,  but  simply  that  the_divine 
guperintendencfi,  which  we  call  inspiration,  ex- 
Jtended  to  the  verbal  expression  of  the  thoughts 
of  the  sacred  writers,  as  well  as  to  the  thoughts 
themselves,  and  that  hence  the  Bible,  considered 
as  a  record,  an  utterance  in  words  of  a  divine 
revelation,  is  the  word  of  God  to  us.  Hence,  in 
all  the  affirmations  of  Scripture  of  every  kind 
there  is  no  more  error  in  the  words  of  the  orig- 
inal autographs  than  in  the  thoughts  they  were 
chosen  to  express.  The  though  la  and  words  are 
both  alike  human,  and  therefore  subject  to  hu- 


20  INSPIRATION. 

man  limitations,  but  the  divine  superinteLilence 
and  guarantee  extend  to  the  one  as  much  as  the 
other. 

(2.)  There  are  others  who,  while  insisting  as 
strongly  as  any  upon  the  presence  of  the  divine 
element  in  Scripture,  developed  through  special 
providences  and  gracious  dealings,  religious  ex- 
periences and  mental  processes,  in  the  very  man- 
ner we  have  just  set  forth  under  the  head  of  the 
"  Genesis  of  Scripture,"  yet  substantially  deny 
what  we  have  here  called  "  inspiration."  They 
retain  the  word  "  inspiration,"  but  signify  by'  it 

v'  the  divine  element  in  the  revelation,  or  providen- 
tial or  gracious  dealing  aforesaid,  and  they  believe 
that  the  sacred  writers,  having  been  divinely 
helped  to  certain  knowledge,  were  left  to  the  nat- 
ural limitations  and  fallibility  incidental  to  their 
human  and  personal  characters,  alike  in  their 
thinking  out  their  several  narrations  and  expo- 
sitions of  divine  truth,  and  in  their  reduction  of 
them  to  writing.  This  view  gives  up  the  whole 
matter  of  the  immediate  divine  authorship  of 

'  the  Bible  as  the  word  of  God,  and  its  infalli- 
bility and  authority  as  a  rule  of  faith  and  prac- 
tice. We  have  only  the  several  vei-sions  of  G^d's* 
revelations  as  rendered  mentally  and  verbally, 
more  or  less  adequately,  yet  always  imperfectly. 
by  the  different  sacred  writers.      This  ola^s  of 


INSPIRATION.  21 

objectors  are,  of  course,  self-consistent  in  reject* 
ing  verbal  inspiration  in  any  sense.  But  this 
view  is  not  consistent  either  with  the  claims  of 
Scripture,  the  consciousness  of  Christians  or  the 
historic  doctrine  of  the  Church. 

(3.)  There  are  others  who  maintain  that  the 
Scriptures  have  been  certainly  inspired  so  far 
forth  as  to  constitute  them  in  all  their  parts,  and 
as  a  whole,  an  infallible  and  divinely-authorita- 
tive rule  of  faith  and  practice,  and  yet  hold  that, 
while  the  thoughts  of  the  sacred  writers  concern- 
ing doctrine  and  duty  were  inspired  and  error- 
less, their  language  was  of  purely  human  sug- 
gestion, and  more  or  less  accurate.  The  question 
as  to  whether  the  elements  of  Scripture  relating 
to  the  course  of  Nature  and  to  the  events  of  his- 
tory are  without  error  will  be  considered  below : 
it  is  sufficient  to  say  under  the  present  head  that 
it  is  self-evident  that,  just  as  far  as  the  thoughts 
of  Scripture  relating  to  any  element  or  topic 
whatsoever  are  inspired,  the  words  in  which 
those  thoughts  are  expressed  must  be  inspired 
also.  Every  element  of  Scripture,  whether  doc- 
trine or  history,  of  which  God  has  guaranteed 
the  infallibility,  must  be  infallible  in  its  verbal 
expression.  No  matter  ho^  in  other  respects 
generated,  the  Scriptures  are  a  product  of  human 
thought,  and  every  process  of  human  thought 


22  INSPIRATION. 

involves  language.  "  The  slightest  consideration 
will  show  that  words  are  as  essential  to  intellect- 
ual processes  as  they  are  t:  mutual  intercourse. 
.  .  .  Thoughts  are  wedded  to  words  as  necessa- 
rily as  soul  to  body.  Without  it  the  mysteries 
unveiled  before  the  eyes  of  the  seer  would  be 
confused  shadows ;  with  it,  they  are  made  clear 
lessons  for  liuman  life."* 

Besides  this,  the  Scriptures  are  a  record  of 
divine  revelations,  and  as  such  consist  of  words ; 
and  as  far  as  the  record  is  inspired  at  all,  and  as 
far  as  it  is  in  any  element  infallible,  its  inspira- 
tion must  reach  to  its  words.  Infallible  thought 
must  be  definite  thought,  and  definite  thought 
implies  words.  But  if  God  could  have  render- 
ed the  thoughts  of  the  apostles  regarding  doc- 
trine and  duty  infallibly  correct  without  words, 
and  then  left  them  to  convey  it  to  us  in  their 
own  language,  we  should  be  left  to  precisely  that 
amount  of  certainty  for  the  foundation  of  our 
faith  as  is  guaranteed  by  the  natural  compe- 
tency of  the  human  authors,  and  neither  more 
nor  less.  There  would  be  no  divine  guarantee 
whatever.  The  human  medium  would  every- 
where interpose  its  fallibility  between  God  and 
us.     Besides,  most  believers  admit  that  some  of 

*  Canon  "VVestcott's  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  thi 
Gospels,  5th  edition:  Introduction,  pp.  14,  15. 


INSPIRATION.  ^ 

the  prophetical  parts  of  Scripture  were  verbally 
dictated.  It  was,  moreover,  promised  that  the 
apostles  should  speak  as  the  Spirit  gave  them 
utterance.  "  The  word  of  God  came  unto  the 
prophet."  The  Church  has  always  held,  as  ex- 
pressed by  the  Helvetic  Confession,  II.,  "that 
the  canonical  Scriptures  are  the  word  of  God." 
Paul  claims  that  the  Holy  Spirit  superintended 
and  guaranteed  his  words  as  well  as  his  thoughts 
(1  Cor.  ii.  13).  The  things  of  the  Spirit  we  teach 
"  not  in  the  words  which  man's  wisdom  teacheth, 
but  which  the  Holy  Ghost  teacheth"  (^ffuyxptvovzaq), 
combining  spiritual  things  with  spiritual — i.  e. 
spiritual  thoughts  with  spiritual  words. 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  it  is  not  clearness 
of  thought  which  inclines  any  of  the  advocates 
of  a  real  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  to 
deny  that  it  extends  to  the  words.  Whatever 
discrepancies  or  other  human  limitations  may 
attach  to  the  sacred  record,  the  line  (of  inspired 
or  not  inspired,  of  infallible  or  fallible)  can  never 
rationally  he  drawn  between  the  thoughts  and  the 
words  of  Scripture. 

Third.  It  is  asked  again  :  In  what  way,  and  to 
what  extent,  is  the  doctrine  of  inspiration  de- 
pendent upon  the  supposed  results  of  modern 
criticism  as  to  the  dates,  authors,  sources  and 
modes  of  composition  of  the  several  books  ?    To 


24  INSPIRATION. 

US  the  following  answer  appears  to  be  well  found- 
ed, and  to  set  the  limits  within  which  the  Church 
doctrine  of  inspiration  is  in  equilibrium  with  the 
results  of  modern  criticism  fairly  and  certainly : 
The  doctrine  of  inspiration,  in  its  essence — 
and,  consequently,  in  all  its  forms — presupposes 
a  supernatural  revelation  and  a  supernatural 
providential  guidance  entering  into  and  de- 
termining the  genesis  of  Scripture  from  the 
beginning.  Every  naturalistic  theory,  there- 
fore, of  the  evolution  of  Scripture,  however  dis- 
guised, is  necessarily  opposed  to  any  true  ver- 
sion of  the  catholic  doctrine  of  inspiration.  It 
is  also  a  well-known  matter  of  fact  that  Christ 
himself  is  the  ultimate  witness  on  whose  testimony 
the  Scriptures,  as  well  as  their  doctrinal  con- 
tents, rest.  We  receive  the  Old  Testament  just 
as  Christ  handed  it  to  us,  and  on  his  authority. 
And  we  receive  as  belonging  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment all,  and  only  those,  books  which  an  apos- 
tolically-instructed  age  testifies  to  have  been  pro- 
duced by  the  apostles  or  their  companions — i.  e, 
by  the  men  whom  Christ  commissioned,  and  to 
whom  he  promised  infallibility  in  teaching.  It 
is  evident,  therefore,  that  every  supposed  con- 
clusion of  critical  investigation  which  denies  the 
^apostolical  origin  of  a  New-Testament  book  or 
the  truth  of  any  part  of  Christ's  testimony  in 


INSPIRATION.  25 

relation  to  the  Old  Testament  and  ita  contents, 
or  which  is  inconsistent  with  the  absolute  truth- 
fulness of  any  affirmation  of  any  book  so  au- 
thenticated, must  be  inconsistent  with  the  true 
doctrine  of  inspiration.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
defenders  of  the  strictest  doctrine  of  inspiration 
should  cheerftilly  acknowledge  that  theories  as 
to  the  authors,  dates,  sources  and  modes  of  com- 
position of  the  several  books  which  are  not  plainly 
inconsistent  with  the  testimony  of  Christ  or  his 
apostles  as  to  the  Old  Testament,  or  with  the 
apostolic  origin  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, or  with  the  absolute  truthfulness  of  any 
of  the  affirmations  of  these  books  so  authenti- 
cated, cannot  in  the  least  invalidate  the  evidence 
or  pervert  the  meaning  of  the  historical  doctrine 
of  inspiration. 

Fourth.  The  real  point  at  issue  between  the 
more  strict  and  the  more  lax  views  of  inspiration 
maintained  by  believing  scholars  remains  to  be 
stated.  It  is  claimed,  and  admitted  equally  on 
both  sides,  that  the  great  design  and  effect  of  in- 
spiration is  to  render  the  Sacred  Scriptures  in  all 
their  parts  a  divinely  infallible  and  authoritative 
rule  of  faith  and  practice,  and  hence  that  in  all 
their  elements  of  thought  and  (expression,  con- 
cerned in  the  great  purpose  of  conveying  to  men 
a  revelation  of  spiritual  doctrine  or  duty,  the 
3 


26  IKSPIKATION, 

Scriptures  are  absolutely  infallible.  But  if  thisr 
be  so,  it  is  argued  by  the  more  liberal  school  of 
Christian  scholars  that  this  admitted  fact  is  not 
inconsistent  with  other  facts  which  they  clainj 
are  matters  of  their  personal  observation :  U 
wit,  that  in  certain  elements  of  Scripture  which 
are  purely  incidental  to  their  great  end  of  teach 
ing  spiritual  truth,  such  as  history,  natural  hi8 
tory,  ethnology,  archseology,  geography,  natural 
science  and  philosophy,  they,  like  all  the  besi 
human  writings  of  their  age,  are,  while  for  the 
most  part  reliable,  yet  limited  by  inaccuracies 
and  discrepancies.  While  this  is  maintained,  it 
is  generally  at  the  same  time  affirmed  that  when 
compared  with  other  books  of  the  same  antiquity 
these  inaccuracies  and  discrepancies  of  the  Bible 
are  inconsiderable  in  number,  and  always  of 
secondary  importance,  in  no  degree  invalidating 
the  great  attribute  of  Scripture — its  absolute  in- 
fallibility and  its  divine  authority  as  a  rule  of 
faith  and  practice. 

The  writers  of  this  article  are  sincerely  con- 
vinced of  the  perfect  soundness  of  the  great . 
catholic  doctrine  of  biblical  inspiration — i.  e. 
that  the  Scriptures  not  only  contain,  but  are, 
THE  WORD  OF  GoD,  and  hence  that  all  their 
elements  and  all  their  affirmations  are  absolutely 
errorless,  and  binding  the  faith  and  obedience  of 


INSPirtATI02?.  27 

men.  Nevertheless,  we  admit  that  the  questioa 
between  ourselves  and  the  advocates  of  the  view 
just  stated  is  one  of  fact,  to  be  decided  only  by 
an  exhaustive  and  impartial  examination  of  all 
the  sources  of  evidence — i.  e.  the  claims  and  the 
phenomena  of  the  Scriptures  themselves.  There 
will  undoubtedly  be  found  upon  the  surface  many 
apparent  affirmations  presumably  inconsistent 
with  the  present  teachings  of  science,  with  facts 
of  history  or  with  other  statements  of  the  sacred 
books  themselves.  Such  apparent  inconsistencies 
and  collisions  with  other  sources  of  information 
are  to  be  expected  in  imperfect  copies  of  ancient 
writings,  from  the  fact  that  the  original  reading 
may  have  been  lost,  or  that  we  may  fail  to  realize 
the  point  of  view  of  the  author,  or  that  we  are 
destitute  of  the  circumstantial  knowledge  which 
would  fill  up  and  harmonize  the  record.  Besides, 
the  human  forms  of  knowledge  by  which  the 
critics  test  the  accuracy  of  Scripture  are  them- 
selves subject±Q-.£rror,  In  view  of  all  the  facts 
known  to  us,  we  affirm  that  a  candid  inspection 
of  all  the  ascertained  phenomena  of  the  original 
text  of  Scripture  will  leave  unmodified  the  an- 
cient faith  of  the  Church.  In  all  their  real 
affirmations  these  books  are  without  error. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  it  is  not  claimed 
that  the  Scriptures,  any  more  than  their  authors, 


28  INSPIRATION. 

are  omniscient.  The  information  they  convey  is 
in  the  forms  of  human  thought,  and  limited  on 
all  sides.  They  were  not  designed  to  teach  phil- 
osophy, science  or  human  history  as  such.  They 
were  not  designed  to  furnish  an  infallible  system 
of  speculative  theology.  They  are  written  in 
human  languages,  whose  words,  inflections,  con- 

V  structions  and  idioms  bear  everywhere  indelible 
^traces  of  human  error.  The  record  itself  fur- 
nishes evidence  that  the  writers  were  in  large 
measure  dependent  for  their  knowledge  upon 
sources  and  methods  in  themselves  fallible,  and 
that  their  personal  knowledge  and  judgments 
were  in  many  matters  hesitating  and  defective, 
or  even  wrong.  Nevertheless,  the .  historical 
faith  of_the  Church  has  always  been  that  all  the 
affirmations  of  Scripture  of  all  kinds,  whether 
of  spiritual  doctrine  or  duty,  or  of  physical  or 
historical  fact,  or  of  psychological  or  philosoph- 
ical principle,  are  without  any  error  when  the 
ipsissima  verba  of  the  original  autographs  are 
ascertained  and  interpreted  in  their  natural  and 
intended  sense.  There  is  a  vast  difference  be- 
tween exactness  of  statement,  which  includes 
an  exhaustive  rendering  of  details,  an  absolute 

V  literalness,  which  the  Scriptures  never  profess, 
and  accuracy,  on  the  other  hand,  which  secures 
a  correct  statement  of  facts  or  principles  in- 


INSPIRATION.  29 

tended  to  be  affirmed.  It  is  this  accuracy,  and 
this  alone,  as  distinct  from  exactness,  which  the 
Church  doctrine  maintains  of  every  affirmation 
in  the  original  text  of  Scripture  without  excep- 
tion. Every  statement  accurately  corresponds . 
to  truth  just  as  far  forth  as  affirmed. 

PROOF   OF  THE   DOCTRINE. 

We  of  course  do  not  propose  to  exhibit  this 
evidence  in  this  article.  We  wish  merely  to  re- 
fresh the  memory  of  our  readers  with  respect  to 
its  copiousness,  variety  and  cogency. 

First.  The  New-Testament  writers  continually 
assert  of  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  of  the  several  books  which  constitute  it,  that 
they  ARE  THE  WORD  OP  GoD.  What  their 
writers  said  God  said,  Christ  sent  out  the 
apostles  with  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  declared  that  in  hearing  them  men  would 
hear  him.  The  apostles  themselves  claimed  to 
speak  as  the  prophets  of  God,  and  with  plenary 
authority  in  his  name  binding  all  consciences. 
And  while  they  did  so  God  endorsed  their  teach- 
ing and  their  claims  with  signs  and  wonders  and 
divers  miracles.  These  claims  are  a  universal 
and  inseparable  characteristic  of  every  part  of 
Scripture. 

Second.  Although  composed  by  different  hu« 
3* 


30  INSPIRATION. 

man  authors  on  various  subjects  and  occaskns, 
under  all  possible  varieties  of  providential  con- 
ditions, in  two  languages,  thiough  sixteen  cen- 
turies of  time,  yet  they  evidently  constitute  one 
system,  all  their  parts  minutely  correlated,  the 
whole  unfolding  a  single  purpose,  and  thus  giv- 
ing indubitable  evidence  of  the  controlling  pres- 
ence of  a  divine  intelligence  from  first  to  last. 

Third.  It  is  true  that  the  Scriptures  were  not 
designed  to  teach  philosophy,  science  or  ethnology, 
or  human  history  as  such,  and  therefore  they  are 
not  to  be  studied  primarily  as  sources  of  infor- 
mation on  these  subjects.  Yet  all  these  elements 
are  unavoidably  incidentally  involved  in  the 
itatementa  of  Scripture.  Many  of  these,  be- 
cause of  defective  knowledge  or  interpretation 
upon  our  part,  present  points  of  apparent  con- 
fusion or  error.  Yet  the  outstanding  fact  is,  that 
the  general  conformableness  of  the  sacred  books 
to  modern  knowledge  in  all  these  departments 
Is  purely  miraculous.  If  tliese  books,  which 
originated  in  an  obscure  province  of  the  ancient 
world,  be  compared  with  the  most  enlightened 
cosmogonies  or  philosophies  or  histories  of  the 
same  or  immediately  subsequent  centuries,  their 
comparative  freedom  even  from  apparent  error 
is  amazing.  Who  prevented  the  sacred  writers 
fix)m  falling  into  the  wholesale  and  radical  mis- 


INSPIRATION-.  31 

takes  which  were  necessarily  incidental  to  their 
position  as  mere  men?  The  fact  that  at  this 
date  scientists  of  the  rank  of  Faraday  and  Henry, 
of  Dana,  of  Guyot  and  Dawson,  maintain  that 
there  is  no  real  conflict  between  the  really  ascer- 
tained facts  of  science  and  the  first  two  chapters 
of  Genesis,  rightly  interpreted,  of  itself  demon- 
strates that  a  supernatural  intelligence  must  have 
directed  the  writing  of  those  chapters.  This,  of 
course,  proves  that  the  scientific  element  of  Script- 
ure, as  well  as  the  doctrinal,  was  within  the  scope 
of  inspiration.  And  this  argument  is  every  day 
acquiring  greater  force  from  the  results  of  the 
critical  study  of  Scripture,  and  from  advanced 
knowledge  in  every  department  of  history  and 
science,  which  continually  tend  to  solve  diffi- 
culties and  to  lessen  the  number  of  apparent 
discrepancies. 

Fourth.  The  moral  and  spiritual  character  of 
the  revelation  which  the  Scriptures  convey  of 
God,  of  the  person  of  Christ,  of  the  plan  of  re- 
demption and  of  the  law  of  absolute  righteous- 
ness, and  the  power  which  the  very  words  of  the 
record,  as  well  as  the  truths  they  express,  have 
exercised  over  the  noblest  men  and  over  nations 
and  races  for  centuries, — this  is  the  characteristic 
self-demonstration  of  the  word  of  God,  and  has 
sufficed  to  maintain  the  unabated  catholicitv  of 


32  INSPIRATION. 

the  strict  doctrine  of  inspiration  through  all 
change  of  time  and  in  spite  of  all  opposition. 

Fifth.  This  doctrine  of  the  inspiration  of  Script- 
ure, in  all  its  elements  and  parts,  has  always 
been  the  doctrine  of  the  Church.  Dr.  Westcott 
has  proved  this  by  a  copious  catena  of  quota- 
tions from  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  in  Appendix  B 
to  his  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Gospels. 
He  quotes  Clemens  Romanus  as  saying  that 
the  Scriptures  are  "the  true  utterances  of  the 
Holy  Ghost."  He  quotes  Tertullian  as  say- 
ing that  these  books  are  "  the  writings  and  the 
words  of  God,"  and  Cyprian  as  saying  that  the 
**  gospel  cannot  stand  in  part  and  fall  in  part," 
and  Clement  of  Alexandria  to  the  effect  that  the 
foundations  of  our  faith  "  we  have  received  from 
God  through  the  Scriptures,"  of  which  not  one 
tittle  shall  pass  away  without  being  accomplished, 
"  for  the  mouth  of  the  Lord  the  Holy  Spirit 
spake  it."  Dr.  Westcott  quotes  Origen  as  teach- 
ing that  the  Scriptures  are  without  error,  since 
"  they  were  accurately  written  by  the  co-opera- 
tion of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  and  that  the  words  of 
Paul  are  the  words  of  God. 

The  Roman  Church  (Can.  Cone.  Trid.,  Sess. 
.IV.)  says,  "  God  is  the  author  of  both  "  Testa- 
ments. The  second  Helvetic  Confession  repre- 
sents the  whole  Protestant  Reformation  in  saying 


INSPIRATION.  33 

(Ch.  I.)  :  "  The  canonical  Scriptures  are  the  true 
word  of  God,"  for  **  God  continues  to  speak  to 
us  through  the  Holy  Scriptures."  The  West- 
minster Confession  says :  "  It  pleased  the  Lord 
at  sundry  times  and  in  divers  manners  to  reveal 
himself  and  to  declare  his  will  unto  his  Church, 
and  afterward  ...  to  commit  the  same  wholly 
unto  writing."  It  declares  that  the  Scriptures 
are  in  such  a  sense  given  by  inspiration  that  they 
|)ossess  a  divine  authority,  and  that  "God  is 
their  author,"  and  they  "are  the  word  of 
God." 

It  is  not  questionable  that  the  great  historic 
churches  have  held  these  creed  definitions  in  tho 
sense  of  affirming  the  errorless  infallibility  of 
the  Word.  This  is  everywhere  shown  by  the 
way  in  which  all  the  great  bodies  of  Protestant 
theologians  have  handled  Scripture  in  their  com- 
mentaries, systems  of  theology,  catechisms  and 
sermons.  And  this  has  always  been  pre-eminently 
characteristic  of  epochs  and  agents  of  reforma- 
tion and  revival.  All  the  great  world-moving 
men,  as  Luther,  Calvin,  Knox,  Wesley,  White- 
field  and  Chalmers,  and  proportionately  those 
most  like  them,  have  so  handled  the  divine 
Word.  Even  if  the  more  lax  doctrine  has  the 
suffrage  of  many  scholars,  or  even  if  it  be  true, 
it  is  nevertheless  certain  that  hitherto  in  nine- 


34  INSPIRATION. 

teen  ceuturies  it  has  never  been  held  by  raen 
who  also  possessed  the  secret  of  using  the  word 
of  God  like  a  hammer  or  like  a  fire. 

LEGITIMATE   PRESUMPTIONS. 

In  testing  this  question  by  a  critical  investi- 
gation of  the  phenomena  of  Scripture,  it  is  evi- 
dent that  the  stricter  view,  which  denies  the 
existence  of  errors,  discrepancies  or  inaccurate 
statements  in  Scripture,  has  the  presumption 
in  its  favor,  and  that  the  onus  probandi  rests 
upon  the  advocates  of  the  other  view.  The  lat- 
ter may  fairly  be  required  to  furnish  positive 
and  conclusive  evidence  in  each  alleged  instance 
of  error  until  the  presumption  has  been  turned 
over  to  the  other  side.  The  primd  facie  evidence 
of  the  claims  of  Scripture  is  assuredly  all  in 
favor  of  an  errorless  infallibility  of  all  script- 
ural affirmations.  This  has  been  from  the  first 
the  general  faith  of  the  historical  Church  and  of 
the  Bible-loving,  spiritual  people  of  God.  The 
very  letter  of  the  Word  has  been  proved  from 
ancient  times  to  be  a  tremendous  power  in  hu- 
man life. 

It  is  a  question  also  of  infinite  importance. 
If  the  new  views  are  untrue,  they  threaten  not 
only  to  shake  the  confidence  of  men  in  the 
Scriptures,  but  the  very  Scriptures   themselves 


INSPIRATION.  35 

as  an  objective  ground  of  faith.  We  have  seen 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  has,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
preserved  the  sacred  writers  to  a  degree  unpar- 
alleled elsewhere  in  literature  from  error  in  the 
departments  of  philosophy  and  science.  Who 
then  shall  determine  the  limit  of  that  preserving 
influence?  We  have  seen  that  in  God's  plan 
doctrine  grows  out  of  history,  and  that  redemp- 
tion itself  was  wrought  out  in  human  history. 
If,  then,  the  inspiration  of  the  sacred  writei*s 
did  not  embrace  the  department  of  history,  or 
only  of  sacred  and  not  of  profane  history,  who 
shall  set  the  limit  and  define  what  is  of  the  es- 
sence of  faith  and  what  the  uncertain  accident  ? 
It  would  assuredly  appear  that,  as  no  organism 
can  be  stronger  than  its  weakest  part,  if  error 
be  found  in  any  one  element  or  in  any  class  of 
statements,  certainty  as  to  any  portion  could 
rise  no  higher  than  belongs  to  that  exercise  of 
human  reason  to  which  it  will  be  left  to  dis 
criminate  the  infallible  from  the  fallible. 

The  critical  investigation  must  be  made, 
and  we  must  abide  by  the  result  when  it  is  un- 
questionably reached.  But  surely  it  must  be 
carried  on  with  infinite  humility  and  teachable- 
ness, and  with  prayer  for  the  constant  guidance 
of  the  gracious  Spirit.  The  signs  of  success  will 
neve.r  be  presumption,  an  evident  sense  of  Intel- 


36  INSPIRATION. 

lectual  superiority,  or  a  want  of  sympathy  witli 
the  spiritual  Church  of  all  ages  or  with  the 
painful  confusion  of  God's  humble  people  of 
the  present. 

With  these  presumptions  and  in  this  spirit 
let  it  (1)  be  proved  that  each  alleged  discrep- 
ant statement  certainly  occurred  in  the  original 
autograph  of  the  sacred  book  in  which  it  is  said 
to  be  found.  (2)  Let  it  be  proved  that  the  in- 
terpretation which  occasions  the  apparent  dis- 
crepancy is  the  one  which  the  passage  was  evi- 
dently intended  to  bear.  It  is  not  sufficient  to 
show  a  difficulty,  which  may  spring  out  of  our 
defective  knowledge  of  the  circumstances.  The 
true  meaning  must  be  definitely  and  certainly 
ascertained,  and  then  shown  to  be  irreconcilable 
with  other  known  truth.  (3)  Let  it  be  proved 
that  the  true  sense  of  some  part. of  the  original 
autograph  is  directly  and  necessarily  inconsistent 
with  some  certainly-known  fact  of  history  or 
truth  of  science,  or  some  other  statement  of 
Scripture  certainly  ascertained  and  interpreted. 
We  believe  that  it  can  be  shown  that  this  has 
never  yet  been  successfully  done  in  the  case  of 
one  single  alleged  instance  of  error  in  the  woRit 
OF  God. 


INSPIRATION.  37 

CRITICAL  OBJECTIONS  TRIED. 

It  remains  only  to  consider  more  in  detail 
some  of  the  special  objections  which  have  been 
put  forward  against  this  doctrine  in  the  name 
of  criticism.  It  cannot  be,  indeed,  demanded 
that  every  one  urged  should  be  examined  and 
met,  but  it  may  be  justly  expected  that  the 
chief  classes  of  relevant  objections  should  be 
briefly  touched  upon.  This,  fortunately,  is  no 
illimitable  task.  There  are,  as  already  stated, 
two  main  presuppositions  lying  at  the  base  of 
the  doctrine,  essential  to  its  integrity,  while  to 
them  it  adds  one  essential  supposition.  The  pre- 
suppositions are — 1.  The  possibility  of  supernat- 
ural interference,  and  the  actual  occurrence  of 
that  interference  in  the  origin  of  our  Bible; 
and,  2.  The  authenticity,  genuineness  and  histor- 
ical credibility  of  the  records  included  in  our 
Bible.  The  added  supposition  is — 3.  The  truth 
to  fact  of  every  statement  in  the  Scriptures. 
No  objection  from  the  side  of  criticism  is  rele- 
vant unless  it  traverses  some  one  of  these  three 
points.  The  traditional  view  of  the  age  and 
authorship  of  a  document  or  of  the  meaning  of 
a  statement  may  be  traversed,  and  yet  no  con- 
flict arise  with  the  doctrine  of  a  strict  inspira- 
tion. But  criticism  cannot  reach  results  incon- 
4 


38  INSPIRATION. 

sisteDt  with  the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  a 
document  judged  according  to  the  professions  of 
that  document  or  the  statements  or  implications 
of  any  other  part  of  Scripture,  or  incompatible 
-with  the  truth  of  any  passage  in  the  sense  of 
that  passage  arrived  at  by  the  correct  applica^ 
tion  of  the  sound  principles  of  historico-gram- 
matical  exegesis,  without  thereby  arraying  her- 
self in  direct  opposition  to  the  Church  doctrine 
of  inspiration.  All  objections  to  that  doctrine 
based  on  such  asserted  results -of  criticism  are 
undoubtedly  relerantP  Our  duty  is,  therefore, 
to  ask  what  results  of  criticism  are  claimed 
which  traverse  some  one  of  the  three  assertions 
— of  a  supernatural  origin  for  the  Scriptures, 
of  genuineness  and  authenticity  for  its  books, 
and  of  absolute  freedom  from  error  of  its  state- 
ments. 

1.  The  Authenticity  and  Integrity  of  thb 
Books   of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments, AS  they  have  come  down  to  us. 
The  first  point  for  us  to  examine  would  nat- 
urally be  the  bearing  upon  the  Church  doctrine 
of  inspiration   of  the   various  modem   critical 
theories  concerning  the  origin  and  present  integ- 
rity of  the  several  books  of  the  Old  and  Ne^ 
Testaments.     This  is  at  present  the  most  moment 


INSPIRATION.  39 

ouy  question  which  agitates  the  believing  world. 
The  critical  examination  of  all  the  most  inti- 
mate phenomena  of  the  text  of  Scripture  is  an 
obvious  duty,  and  its  results,  when  humility,  do- 
cility and  spiritual  insight  are  added  to  compe- 
tent learning  and  broad  intelligence,  must  be 
eminently  beneficial.  It  is  obvious,  however, 
that  this  department  of  the  subject  could  not  be 
adequately  discussed  in  this  paper.  It  is  con- 
sequently postponed  to  the  near  future,  when  it 
is  intended  that  the  whole  subject  shall  be  pre- 
sented as  fully  as  possible. 

In  the  mean  time,  the  present  writers,  while 
they  admit  freely  that  the  traditional  belief  as 
to  the  dates  and  origin  of  the  several  books  may 
be  brought  into  question  without  involving  any 
doubt  as  to  their  inspiration,  yet  confidently 
affirm  that  any  theories  of  the  origin  or  author- 
ship of  any  book  of  either  Testament  which 
ascribe  to  them  a  purely  naturalistic  genesis, 
or  dates  or  authors  inconsistent  with  either  their 
own  natural  claims  or  the  assertions  of  other 
Scripture,  are  plainly  inconsistent  with  the  doc- 
trine of  inspiration  taught  by  the  Church. 
Nor  have  they  any  embarrassment  in  the  face 
of  these  theories,  seeing  that  they  believe  them 
to  rest  on  no  better  basis  than  an  over-acute 
criticism   overreaching   itself  and   building   on 


40  INSPIRATION. 

fancies.  Here  they  must  content  themselvea 
with  reference  to  the  various  critical  discussions 
of  these  theories  which  have  poured  from  the 
press  for  detailed  refutation  of  them.  With 
this  refutation  in  mind  they  simply  assert  their 
conviction  that  none  of  the  claims  or  assertions 
of  the  Scriptures  as  to  the  authenticity  of  a  sin- 
gle book  of  either  Testament  has  hitherto  been 
disproved. 

II.  Detailed  Accuracy  of  Statement. 

We  are  next  confronted  with  objections  meant 
to  traverse  the  third  of  our  preliminary  state- 
ments, consisting  of  bold  assertions  that,  what- 
ever may  have  been  their  origin,  our  Scriptures 
do  exhibit  phenomena  of  inaccuracy,  that  mis- 
takes are  found  in  them,  errors  committed  by 
them,  untrue  statements  ventured.  Nor  is  this 
charge  put  forward  only  by  opponents  of  reve- 
lation :  a  Van  Oosterzee,  as  well  as  "a  Tholuck, 
a  Neander,  a  Lange,  a  Stier,"  admits  "errors 
*and  inaccuracies  in  matters  of  subordinate  im- 
portance." *  It  is  plain,  however,  that  if  the 
Scriptures  do  fail  in  truth  in  their  statements 
of  whatever  kind,  the  doctrine  of  inspiration 
which  has  been  defended  in  this  paper  cannot 
stand.  But  so  long  as  the  principles  of  historico- 
*  See  Yan  Oosterzee's  Dogr-iatics,  p.  205. 


INSPIBATIOX.  41 

grammatical  exegesis  are  relied  on  to  determine 
the  meaning  of  Scripture,  it  is  impossible  to 
escape  the  fact  that  the  Bible  claims  to  be  thus 
inspired.  And  thus  it  is  not  a  rare  thing  to  find 
the  very  theologians  who  themselves  caunot  be- 
lieve in  a  strict  inspiration  yet  admitting  that 
the  Scripture  writers  believed  in  it  *  We  can- 
not, therefore,  occupy  the  ground  on  which  these 
great  and  worthy  men  seem  to  us  so  precariously 
to  stand.  A  proved  error  in  Scripture  contra- 
dicts not  only  our  doctrine,  but  the  Scripture 
claims,  and  therefore  its  inspiration  in  making 
those  claims.  It  is  therefore  of  vital  import- 
ance to  ask.  Can  phenomena  of  error  and  untruth 
be  pointed  out? 

There  is  certainly  no  dearth  of  "  instances  " 
*  Thus  Tholuck :  "  Yet  his  [the  author  of  Hebrews] 
application  of  the  Old  Testament  rests  on  the  strictest 
view  of  inspiration,  since  passages  where  God  is  not  the 
speaker  are  cited  as  words  of  God  or  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
(i.  6,  7,  8;  iv.  4,  7  ;  vii.  21 ;  iii.  7  ;  x.  15)."— OW  Tesior 
ment  in  the  New,  in  Bibliotheca  Sacra^  xi.  p.  612.  So  also 
Richard  Rothe :  "  It  is  clear,  then,  that  the  orthodox  the- 
ory [i.  e.  the  very  strictest]  of  inspiration  is  countenanced 
by  the  authors  of  the  New  Testament."  So  also  Canon 
Farrar:  "He  [Paul]  shared,  doubtless,  in  the  views  of 
the  later  Jewish  schools — the  Tanainr  and  Amoraim — 
on  the  nature  of  inspiration.  These  views  .  .  .  made 
the  words  of  Scripture  coextensive  and  identical  witb- 
the  words  of  God." — Life  of  Paul,  ii.  p.  47. 
4« 


42  INSPIRATION. 

confidently  put  forward.  But  it  is  abundantly 
plain  that  the  vast  majority  of  them  are  irrele- 
vant. We  must  begin  any  discussion  of  them, 
therefore,  by  reasserting  certain  simple  propo- 
sitions, the  result  of  which  will  be  to  clear  the 
ground  of  all  irrelevant  objections.  It  is  to  be 
remembered,  then,  that — 1.  We  do  not  assert 
that  the  common  text,  but  only  that  the  original 
autographic  text,  was  inspired.  No  "  error  "  can 
be  asserted,  therefore,  which  cannot  be  proved  to 
have  been  aboriginal  in  the  text.  2.  We  do  not 
deny  an  everywhere-present  human  element  in 
the  Scriptures.  No  mark  of  the  effect  of  this 
human  element,  therefore — in  style  of  thought 
or  wording — can  be  urged  against  inspiration 
unless  it  can  be  shown  to  result  in  untruth.  3. 
We  do  not  erect  inspiration  into  an  end,  but  hold 
it  to  be  simply  a  means  to  an  end — viz.  the  ac- 
curate conveyance  of  truth.  No  objection,  there- 
fore, is  valid  against  the  form  in  which  the  truth 
is  expressed,  so  long  as  it  is  admitted  that  that 
form  conveys  the  truth.  4.  We  do  not  suppose 
that  inspiration  made  a  writer  false  to  his  pro- 
fessed purpose,  but  rather  that  it  kept  him  in- 
fallibly true  to  it.  No  objection  is  valid,  there- 
fore, which  overlooks  the  prime  question :  What 
was  the  professed  or  implied  purpose  of  the 
writer  in  making  this  statement?     These  few 


INSPIRATION.  43 

simple  and  very  obvious  remarks  stt  aside  the  vast 
majority  of  the  customary  objections.  The  first 
throws  out  of  court  numbers  of  inaccuracies  in 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments  as  either  certainly 
or  probably  not  parts  of  the  original  text,  and 
therefore  not  fit  evidence  in  the  case.  The 
second  performs  the  same  service  for  a  still 
greater  number,  which  amount  simply  to  the 
discovery  of  individual  traits,  modes  of  thought 
or  expression,  or  forms  of  argumentation  in  the 
writings  of  the  several  authoi-s  of  the  biblical 
books.  The  third  sets  aside  a  vast  multitude, 
drawn  from  pressure  of  language,  misreading  of 
figures,  resurrection  of  the  primary  sense  of 
idioms,  etc.,  in  utter  forgetfulness  of  the  fact  that 
no  one  claims  that  inspiration  secured  the  use  of 
good  Greek  in  Attic  severity  of  taste,  free  from 
the  exaggerations  and  looseness  of  current  speech, 
but  only  that  it  secured  the  accurate  expression 
of  truth,  even  (if  you  will)  through  the  medium 
of  the  worst  Greek  a  fisherman  of  Galilee  could 
write  and  the  most  startling  figures  of  speech  a 
peasant  could  invent.  Exegesis  must  be  histor- 
ical as  well  as  grammatical,  and  must  always 
seek  the  meaning  intended,  not  any^meaning  that 
can  be  tortured  out  of  a  passage.  The  fourth  in 
like  manner  destroys  the  force  of  every  objection 
which  is  tacitly  founded  on  the  idea  that  partial 


44  IN'SPIRATION. 

and  incomplete  stalemente  cannot  be  inspired,  no 
documents  can  be  quoted  except  verbatim,  do 
conversations  reported  unless  at  length,  etc., 
and  which  thus  denies  the  right  of  another  to 
speak  to  the  present  purpose  only,  appeal  to  the 
sense,  not  wording  of  a  document,  give  abstracts 
of  discourses,  and  apply,  by  a  true  exegesis,  the 
words  of  a  previous  writer  to  the  present  need. 
The  sum  of  the  whole  matter  is  simply  this:  No 
phenomenon  can  be  validly  urged  against  verbal 
inspiration  which,  found  out  of  Scripture,  would 
not  be  a  valid  argument  against  the  truth  of  the 
writing.  Inspiration  securing  no  more  than  this 
— truth,  simple  truth — no  phenomenon  can  be 
urged  against  verbal  inspiration  which  cannot  be 
proved  to  involve  an  indisputable  error.  jn 

It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  such  phenomena  are 
asserted  to  be  discoverable  in  the  Scriptures.  Is 
the  assertion  capable  of  being  supported  by  facts  ? 
That  is  the  only  question  now  before  us.  And  it 
thus  becomes  our  duty  to  examine  some  samples 
of  the  chief  classes  of  facts  usually  appealed  to. 
These  samples — which  will,  moreover,  all  be 
chosen  from  the  New  Testament,  and  all  at  the 
suggestion  of  opponents — must  serve  our  present 
needs. 


INSPIRATION. 


45 


niiTORICAL   AND   GEOGRAPHICAL   ACCURACY. 

1.  It  is  asserted  that  the  Scripture  writers  are 
inaccurate  in  their  statements  of  historical  and 
geographical  facts,  as  exhibited  by  the  divergence 
existing  between  their  statements  and  the  infor- 
mation we  derive  from  other  sources,  such  as  pro- 
fane writers  and  monuments.  When  we  ask  for 
the  proofs  of  this  assertion,  however,  they  are 
found  to  be  very  difficult  to  produce.  A  genera- 
tion or  two  ago  this  was  not  so  much  the  case ; 
but  the  progress  of  our  knowledge  of  the  times 
and  the  geography  of  the  region  in  which  our 
sacred  books  were  written  has  been  gradually 
wiping  out  the  "  proofs  "  one  by  one,  until  they 
are  at  this  day  non-existent.  The  chief  (and 
almost  the  only)  historical  errors  still  asserted  to 
oxist  in  the  New  Testament  are— the  "  fifteenth 
year  of  Tiberius"  of  Luke  iii.  1 ;  the  enrollment 
during  Cyrenias's  governorship  of  Luke  ii.  2 ; 
and  the  revolt  of  Theudas  of  Acts  v.  36.  It  is 
not  denied  that  these  statements  present  diffi- 
culties, but  it  is  humbly  suggested  that  that  is 
hardly  synonymous  with  sajdng  that  they  aie 
proved  mistakes.  Ij  Herod  died  in  the  spring 
of  A.  U.  c.  750  (which  seems  wellnigh  certain), 
and  if,  in  Luke  iii.  23,  the  "about"  be  deemed 
not  broad  enough  to  cover  two  years  (which  is 


46  INSPIRATION. 

fairly  probable),  and  if  Luke  iii.  1  means  to  date 
John's  first  appearance  (as  again  seems  prob- 
able), and  if  no  more  than  six  months  intervened 
between  John's  and  Jesus'  public  appearance 
(which,  still  again,  seems  probable),— then  it  is 
admitted  that  the  "  fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius " 
must  be  a  mistake — -provided  that,  still  further, 
we  must  count  his  years  from  the  beginning,,'  of 
his  sole  reign,  and  not  from  his  co-reguaucy  with 
Augustus;  in  favor  of  which  latter  mode  of 
counting  much,  has  been,  and  more  can  be, 
urged.  Surely  this  is  not  a  very  clear  case  of 
indubitable  error,  with  its  five  ifs  staring  us  in 
the  face.  Again,  if  the  Theudas  mentioned  in 
Acts  is  necessarily  the  same  as  the  Theudas 
mentioned  by  Josephus,  then  Luke  and  Josephus 
do  seem  to  be  in  disaccord  as  to  the  time  of  his 
revolt ;  and  if  Josephus  can  be  shown  to  be,  in 
general,  a  more  accurate  historian  than  Luke, 
then  his  account  must  be  preferred.  But  neither 
of  these  ifs  is  true.  Josephus  is  the  less  ac- 
curate historian,  as  is  easily  proved ;  and  there 
are  good  reasons — convincing  to  a  critic  like 
Winer  and  a  Jew  like  Jost,  neither  certainly 
afiected  by  apologetical  bias — to  suppose  that 
Acts  and  Josephus  mention  different  revolts. 
Where,  then,  is  the  contradiction? 
The  greatest  reliance  is,  however,  placed  on  the 


INSPIRATION.  4^ 

third  case  adduced — the  statement  of  Luke  that 
Jesus  was  born  at  the  time  of  a  world-enroll- 
ment which  was  carried  out  in  Syria  during  the 
governorship  of  Cy renins.  Weiss*  offers  three 
reasons  why  Luke  is  certainly  incorrect  here, 
which  Schurerf  increases  to  five  facts — viz. :  1. 
History  knows  nothing  of  a  general  empire- 
census  in  the  time  of  Augustus ;  2.  A  Roman 
census  would  not  force  Joseph  to  go  to  Bethle- 
hem, nor  Mary  to  go  with  him ;  3.  Nor  could  it 
have  taken  place  in  Palestine  in  the  time  of 
Herod;  4.  Josephus  knows  nothing  of  such  a 
census,  but,  on  the  contrary,  speaks  of  that  of 
Acts  V.  37  as  something  new  and  unheard  of; 
and,  5.  Quirinius  was  not  governor  of  Syria  dur- 
ing Herod's  life.  This  has  a  formidable  look, 
but  each  detail  has  been  more  than  fully  met. 
Thus,  Objection  1  turns  wholly  upon  an  argu- 
mentum  e  silentio,  always  precarious  enough,  and 
here  quadruply  so,  seeing  that  (1)  an  empire- 
census  is  just  such  a  thing  as  Roman  historians 
would  be  likely  to  omit  all  mention  of,  just  as 
Spatian  fails  to  mention  in  his  life  of  Hadrian 
the  famous  rescript  of  that  monarch,  and  all 
contemporary  history  is  silent  as  to  Augustus's 
geometrical  survey;   (2)  "We  have  no  detailed 

*  Meyer's  Markus  und  Lukas,  p.  286  (ed.  6). 
t  N.  T.  ZeiigesckicJUe,  pp.  268-286. 


48  INSPIRATION. 

contemporary  history  of  this  time,  the  inaccurate 
and  gossipiug  Suetonius  and  Josephus  being  our 
only  sources  of  information;  (3)  Certain  oft- 
quoted  passages  in  Tacitus  and  Suetonius  ac- 
quaint us  with  facts  which  absolutely  require 
such  a  census  at  their  base ;  and  (4)  We  have 
direct,  though  not  contemporary,  historical  proof 
that  such  a  census  was  taken,  in  statements  of 
Cassiodorus  and  Suidas.  Objection  2  gains  all 
its  apparent  force  from  a  confusio  verborum. 
Luke  does  not  represent  this  as  a  Roman  census 
in  the  sense  that  it  was  taken  up  after  Roman 
methods,  but  only  in  the  sense  that  it  was  ordered 
ultimately  by  Roman  authority.  Nor  does  he 
represent  Mary  as  being  forced  to  go  to  Bethle- 
hem with  Joseph ;  her  own  choice,  doubtless,  de- 
termined her  journey.  The  same  confusio  ver- 
borum follows  us  into  Objection  3.  It  may  be 
improbable  that  Herod  should  have  been  so  far 
set  aside  that  a  census  should  have  been  taken 
up  in  his  dominions  after  Roman  methods  and 
by  Roman  officials ;  but  is  it  so  improbable  that 
he  should  be  ordered  to  take  himself  a  census 
after  his  own  methods  and  by  his  own  officials  ? 
Josephus  can  give  us  the  answer.*  Whatever 
may  have  been  Herod's  official  title,  whether  rex 

*  Cf.  Ant,  XV.  10,  4 ;  xvi.  2,  5 ;  4,  1 ;  9,  3 ;  xvii.  2,  1 ; 
2,  4 ;  5,  8 ;  11,  4,  etc.,  for  Herod's  status. 


INSPIRATION.  49 

aocius  or,  as  seems  more  probable  (one  stage 
lower),  rex  amicus  Ccesaris,  it  is  certuin  that  he 
felt  bound  to  bow  to  the  emperor's  every  whis- 
per ;  so  that  if  Augustus  desired  statistics  as  to 
the  regna  (and  Tacitus  proves  he  did),  Herod 
would  be  forced  to  furnish  them  for  his  regnum. 
Objection  4  again  is  easily  laid :  Josephus  not 
only  mentions  nothing  he  could  escape  which 
exhibited  Jewish  subjection,  but  actually  passes 
over  the  decade  750-760  so  slightly  that  he  can 
hardly  be  said  to  have  left  us  a  history  of  that 
time.  That  he  speaks  of  the  later  census  of 
Acts  V.  37  as  something  new  is  most  natural, 
seeing  that  it  was,  as  carried  on  by  the  Roman 
officials  and  after  Roman  methods,  not  only  ab- 
solutely new,  and  a  most  important  event  in 
itself,  but,  moreover,  was  fraught  with  such  his- 
torical consequences  that  it  could  not  be  passed 
over  in  silence.  Objection  5  is  the  most  import- 
ant and  difficult,  but  not,  therefore,  insuperable. 
It  states,  indeed,  a  truth:  Quirinius  was  not  gov- 
ernor of  Syria  until  after  Herod's  death.  But 
it  must  be  noted,  on  the  one  hand,  that  Zumpt 
has  proved,  almost,  if  not  quite,  to  demonstra- 
tion, that  Quirinius  was  twice  governor  of  Syria, 
the  first  time  beginning  within  six  months  after 
Herod's  death ;  and,  on  the  other,  that  Luke 
does  not  say  that  Christ  was  born  while  Cyre- 

6 


60  IXSPURATION. 

uius  was  governor  of  Syria.  What  Luke  says  is» 
that  Christ  was  born  during  the  progress  of  a 
census,  and  then  defines  the  census  as  the  first 
which  was  carried  on  when  Cyrenius  was  gov- 
ernor of  Syria.  If  this  census  was  begun  under 
Varus  and  finished  under  Quiriuius,  Christ  may 
have  been  born,  according  to  Luke,  at  any  time 
during  the  progress  of  this  census.  This,  be- 
cause Luke  ii.  2  is  not  given  to  define  the  time 
of  Christ's  birth,  but  more  narrowly  to  describe 
what  census  it  was  which  had  in  verse  1  been 
used  to  define  the  time  of  Christ's  birth.*  Thus, 
doubtless,  it  is  true  that  Christ  was  born  under 
Varus,  and  yet  during  the  course  of  the  first  Qui- 
rinian  census ;  and  thus  Schiirer's  fifth  objection 
goes  the  way  of  all  the  others. 

The  wonderful  accuracy  of  the  New-Testa- 

*  Take  an  example:  If  one  should  say  of  any  event, 
that  it  occurred  during  our  war  with  Great  Britain,  and 
tlien  add,  "  I  mean  that  war  wherein  Jackson  fought," 
would  he  necessarily  refer  to  an  event  late  in  tlie  war, 
after  Jackson  came  to  the  front  ?  Not  so,  because  the 
war  alone  defines  the  time  of  the  event,  and  Jackson 
onlj  which  war.  So  in  Luke  the  census  alone  defines  the 
time  of  Christ's  birth,  and  Quirinius  only  which  census. 
It  ought  to  be  added  that  there  are  at  least  three  other 
mpithods  of  explaining  Luke's  words,  all  possible,  and 
none  very  improbable,  on  the  supposition  of  any  one 
of  which  conflict  with  history  is  impossible. 


INSPIEATION.  ;61 

merit  writers  in  all,  even  the  minute  and  inci- 
dental, details  of  their  historical  notices  can- 
not, however,  be  made  even  faintly  apparent 
by  a  simple  answering  of  objections.  Some 
sort  of  glance  over  the  field  as  a  whole  is  neces- 
sary to  any  appreciation  of  it.  There  occur  in 
the  New  Testament  some  thirty  names — empe- 
rors, members  of  the  family  of  Herod,  high 
priests,  rabbis,  Roman  governors,  princes,  Jew- 
ish leaders — some  mention  of  which  might  be 
looked  for  in  contemporary  history  or  on  con- 
temporary monuments.*  All  but  two  of  these — 
and  they  the  insignificant  Jewish  rebels  Theudas 
and  Barabbas — are  actually  mentioned ;  and  the 
New-Testament  notices  are  found,  on  compari- 
son, to  be  absolutely  accurate  in  every,  even  the 
most  minute,  detail.  Every  one  of  their  state- 
ments has  not,  indeed,  passed  without  challenge, 

♦These  are:  Augustus,  Tiberius,  Claudius — Herod 
Antipas,  the  two  Philips,  Archelaus,  Agrippa  L,  Agrip- 
pa  II.,  Herodias,  Herodias'  daughter,  Bernice,  Drusilla 
— Annas,  Caiaphas,  Ananias  —  Gamaliel  —  Quirinius, 
Pilate,  Felix,  Festus,  Gallic,  Sergius  Paulus — Aretas 
(Candace),  Lysanias — [Theudas],  Judas  of  Galilee  [Bar- 
abbas]. Candace  seems  to  represent  a  hereditary  title, 
not  a  personal  name;  Theudas  and  Barabbas  are  not 
named  in  profane  sources.  Cf.  the  (incomplete)  list 
and  fine  remarks  of  Rawlinson  {Hist.  Evidences,  Boston, 
1873,  p.  195  sq.). 


52  INSPIRATION. 

6ut  challenge  has  always  meant  triumphant 
vindication.  Some  examples  of  what  is  here 
meant  have  been  given  already ;  others  may  be 
added  in  a  note  for  their  instructiveness,*  Now, 
the  period  of  which  these  writers  treat  is  absolute- 
ly the  most  difficult  historical  period  in  which  to 
be  accurate  that  the  world  has  ever  seen.  Noth- 
ing was  fixed  or  stable ;  vacillation,  change,  was 
everywhere.  The  province  which  was  senator- 
ial to-day  was  imperial  to-morrow — the  bound- 
aries that  were  fixed  to-day  were  altered  to-mor- 
row. That  these  writers  were  thus  accuriate 
in  a  period  and  land  wherein  Tacitus  failed  to 
attain  complete  accuracy  means  much. 

We  reach  the  same  conclusion  if  we  ask  after 
*  It  Wcos  long  boldlj  asserted  that  Luke  was  in  error 
in  making  Lysanias  a  contemporary  tetrareh  with  the 
Herodian  rulers.  But  it  is  now  admitted  that  Josephus 
mentions  an  earlier  and  a  later  Lysanias,  and  so  corrobo- 
rates Luke;  and  inscriptions  also  have  been  brought  for- 
ward which  supervindicate  Luke's  accuracy,  so  that 
even  M.  Kenan  admits  it.  Again,  it  was  long  contend- 
ed that  Luke  had  inaccurately  assigned  a  proconsul  to 
Cyprus ;  but  this  was  soon  set  aside  by  a  reference  to 
Cyprian  coins  of  Claudius's  time  and  to  Dion  Cassius, 
liv.  4;  and  now  Mr.  Cesnola  publishes  an  inscription 
which  mentions  the  veritable  proconsul  Paulus  whom 
Luke  mentioned  {Cyprus,  p.  425).  So  with  reference  to 
the  titles  of  the  rulers  of  Achaia,  Pliilippi,  Ephesus,  etc 
(See  in  general  Lee  on  Inspiration,  p.  364,  note  2.) 


INSPIRATION. 


63 


their  geographical  accuracy.  In  no  single  case 
have  they  slipped  here,  either;  and  what  this 
means  may  be  estimated  by  noting  what  a  mass 
of  geographical  detail  has  been  given  us  *  Be- 
tween forty  and  fifty  names  of  countries 'can  be 
counted  in  the  Kew-Testaraent  pages;  every  one 
is  accurately  named  and  placed.  About  the 
same  number  of  foreign  cities  are  named,  and 
all  equally  accurately.  Still  more  to  the  pur- 
pose, thirty-six  Syrian  and  Palestinian  towns 
are  named,  the  great  majority  of  which  have 
been  identified,!  and  wherever  testing  is  possible 

*  Compare  the  efibrts  of  a  real  forger  with  the  accu- 
racy of  these  autoptic  writers— e.  g.  of  Prochorus,  as 
given  in  Zahn's  Acta  Joannis,  p.  Hi.  Only  nine  real 
places  can  be  found  in  a  long  list  of  geographical  names 
invented  for  the  need.  Thus,  to  the  little  Patmos  a  num- 
ber of  cities  and  villages  is  ascribed  which  would  require 
a  Sicily  or  Cyprus  to  furnish  ground  to  stand  on. 

t  These  names  are :  *^non,  *Antipatris,  f  Arimathea, 
*Azotus,  *Bethany,  fBethany  beyond  Jordan,  *Bethle- 
hem,  llBethphage,  gBethsaida,  gCana,  ^Capernaum,  ^Cse- 
sarea,  -Cssarea  Philippi,  *Chorazin,  IJDalmanutha,  *Da- 
mascus,  tEmmaus,  *Ephraim,  ^Gadara,  *Gaza,  gGerasa, 
*Jericho,  ^Jerusalem,  *Joppa,  fJouda,  fKerioth,  *Lyd- 
da,  *Magdala,  *Nain,  ^Nazareth,  ^Salim,  *Seleucia,  *Sy- 
char,  ^Tiberias,  *Tyre.  Those  marked  ^  are  pretty  cer- 
tainly identified ;  those  f,  with  great  probability ;  those 
§,  with  a  choice  between  the  two  places ;  and  those  ||,  as 
to  their  neighborhood.  There  are,  besides,  some  names 
6* 


54  INSPIRATION. 

the  most  minute  accuracy  emerges.  Whether 
due  to  inspiration  or  not,  this  unvarying  accu- 
racy of  statement  is  certainly  consistent  with 
the  strictest  doctrine  of  inspiration. 

COMPLETE  INTERNAL   HARMONY. 

2.  Another  favorite  charge  made  against  these 
writers  is,  that  they  are  often  hopelessly  inconsist- 
ent with  one  another  in  their  statements ;  and  this 
charge  of  disharmony  has  sometimes  been  push- 
ed so  far  as  to  make  it  do  duty  even  against 
their  historical  credibility.     But  when  we  begin 
to  examine  the  instances   brought   forward   in 
support  of  it,  they  are  found  to  be  cases  of  dij- 
Jicult,  not  of  impossible,  harmony.     And  it  is 
abundantly  plain  that  it  must  be  shown  to  be 
impossible  to  harmonize  any  two  statements  on 
any  natural  supposition  before  they  can  be  as- 
serted to  be  inconsistent.     This  is  a  recognized 
principle  of   historical   investigation,  and  it  is 
the   only  reasonable  principle   possible,  unless 
we  are   prepared  to  assert  that  the  two  state- 
ments  necessarily  contain  all   the  facts  of  the 
case  and   exclude  the   possibility  of   the   har- 

qnoted  from  the  Old  Testament — e.g.  || Gomorrah,  *Eama, 
*Sarepta,  *Shechem,  j|Sodom.  Also  some  other  geo 
graphical  names— e.^.  *The  brook  Kedron,  *Jordan, 
*the  Mount  of  Olives  and  *the  Sea  of  Galilee,  etc. 


INSPIRATION.  66 

monizing  supposition.  Having  our  eyes  upon 
this  principle,  it  is  not  rash  to  declare  that  no 
disharmony  has  ever  been  proved  between  any 
two  statements  of  the  New  Testament.  The 
best  examples  to  illustrate  the  character  "of  the 
attempts  made  to  exhibit  disharmony,  and  the 
rocks  on  which  these  attempts  always  break,  are 
probably  those  five  striking  cases  on  which  Dr. 
Fisher  most  wisely  rests  his  charge  against  the 
complete  harmony  of  the  four  evangelists — viz. 
the  alleged  disharmony  in  the  accounts  of  the 
place  and  phraseology  of  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount,  the  healing  of  the  centurion's  son,  the 
denials  of  Peter,  the  healing  of  the  blind  man, 
at  Jericho,  and  the  time  of  the  institution  of 
the  Lord's  Supper.*  But  that  in  each  of  these 
most  natural  means  of  harmonizing  exist,  and 
are  even  in  some  instances  recognized  as  possi- 
ble by  Dr.  Fisher  himself.  President  Bartlett  has 
lately  so  fully  shown  in  detail  f  that  we  cannot 
bring  ourselves  to  repeat  here  the  oft-told  tale. 
Take  one  or  two  other  examples:  for  instance, 
look  at  that  famous^  case  alleged  in  the  specifi- 
cation of  the  hour  in  John  xix.  14  and  Mark 
XV.  25.  The  difficulty  here,  says  Dean  Alford, 
b  insuperable,  and  with  him  Meyer  et  at.  agree, 

*  Beginnings  of  Christianity,  p.  460  sj. 

f  Princeton  Review,  January,  1880,  p.  47  sq. 


56  INSPIRATION. 

But  even  Strauss  admits  that  it  would  be  can- 
celled "if  it  were  possible  to  prove  that  the 
Fourth  Gospel  proceeds  upon  another  mode  of 
reckoning  time  than  that  used  by  the  Synoptics." 
And  that  it  is  possible  to  prove  this  very  thing 
any  one  can  satisfy  himself  by  noting  the  four 
places  where  John  mentions  the  hour  (i.  39 ;  iv. 
6,  52;  xix.  14);  whence  it  emerges  that  John 
reckons  his  hours  according  to  the  method  prev- 
alent in  Asia  Minor* — from  midnight,  and  not 
from  daybreak.  Thus  all  difficulty  vanishes.f 
The  disharmony  claimed  to  exist  between  Matt. 
xxvii.  6-8  and  Acts  i.  18,  19  is  also  voided  by  a 
naive  kind  of  admission ;  Dean  Alford,  for  in- 
stance, asserting  in  one  breath  that  no  reconcil- 
iation can  be  found  consistent  with  common  hon- 
esty, and  in  the  next  admitting  that  the  natural 
supposition  by  which  the  passages  are  harmo- 
nized is  "of  course  possible."  This  admis- 
sion, on  the  recognized  principles  of  historical 
criticism,  amounts  simply  to  a  confession  ^at 

*  That  this  was  the  custom  in  Asia  Minor  is  evident 
from  Marturium  Polyc,  c.  21,  etc^  Cf.  also  (in  general) 
Pliny,  Nat.  Hist.,  ii.  77,  and  Plutarch,  Quaest  Bom.^ 
Ixxxiii. 

t  Cf.Townson's  Discourses,  Discourse  8;  McClelland's 
N.  T.,  vol.  i.,  p.  737  sg.;  Westcott  on  John,  p.  282;  Lee 
on  Inspiration,  p.  352 ;  where  this  subject  is  fully  dis- 
cussed. 


INSPIRATION.  57 

no    disharmony   ought   to    be   asserted  in   the 
case. 

Perhaps,  however,  the  two  most  important 
and  far-reaching  instances  of  disharraouy  alleged 
of  late  years  are — that  asserted  between  the  nar- 
ratives of  the  events  preceding,  accompanying 
and  following  the  birth  of  our  Lord  given  by 
Matthew  and  Luke,  which  is  said  to  prove  the 
historical  untrustworthiness  of  both  (!)  narra- 
tives ;  and  that  asserted  between  the  accounts  of 
Paul's  visits  to  Jerusalem  and  his  relations  to  the 
Twelve  in  Acts  and  Galatians,  which  is  said  to 
prove  the  unhistorical  character  of  Acts.  In  the 
brief  space  at  our  disposal  it  is  not  possible  to 
disprove  such  wholesale  charges  in  detail.  It 
must  suffice,  therefore,  to  point  out  the  lines  on 
which  such  a  refutation  proceeds.  In  the  first 
instance  the  charge  can  be  upheld  only  by  the 
expedient  of  assuming  that  silence  as  to  an  event 
constitutes  denial  of  that  event,  supported  by 
criticisms  which  tacitly  deny  a  historian's  right 
to  give  summary  accounts  of  transactions  or 
choose  his  incidents  according  to  his  purpose  in 
writing.  Any  careful  examination  of  the  pas- 
sages involved  will  prove  not  only  that  they  are 
not  inconsistent,  but  rather  mutually  supplement- 
ary accounts ;  *  but  also  that  they  actually  imply 

*  The  events  recorded  by  Luke  are — 1.  Annunciation 


68  INSPIRATION. 

2)nf  another,  and  prove  the  truth  of  each  other 
by  a  series  of  striking  undesigned  coincidences.* 

to  Zachariah ;  2.  Annunciation  to  Marj  (in  the  sixth 
nionth  thereafter)  ;  3.  Mary's  visit  to  Elizabeth  (extend- 
ing to  three  months  later)  ;  4.  Birth  of  John  (after  3) ; 
5.  His  circumcision  (eight  days  after  4) ;  6.  Journey  of 
Joseph   and   Mary  to  Bethlehem  ("in  those   days"); 

7.  Birth  of  Jesus  (while  at  Bethlehem) ;  8.  Annuncia- 
tion to  the  shepherds  (the  same  day) ;  9.  Visit  of  the 
shepherds  (hastening) ;  10.  Circumcision  of  Jesus  (eight 
days  after) ;  11.  Presentation  (thirty-three  days  later) ; 
12.  Return  to  Nazareth  (when  all  legal  duties  were  per- 
formed). The  events  recorded  by  Matthew  are — A. 
Mary  is  found  with  child  (before  she  is  taken  to  Joseph's 
house);  B.  Annunciation  to  Joseph;  C.  Mary  is  taken 
home  by  Joseph ;  D.  Visit  of  the  Magi  (after  Jesus* 
birth  at  Bethlehem) ;  E.  Flight  into  Egypt  (after  their 
departure) ;  F.  Slaughter  of  the  innocents  (when  Herod 
had  discovered  that  the  wise  men  had  gone) ;  G.  Death 
of  Herod ;  H.  Return  from  Egypt  to  Nazareth  (after 
Herod's  death).  These  events  dovetail  beautifully- 
into  one  another,  as  follows ;  1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  A,  B,  C,  6,  7, 

8,  9,  10,  11,  D  [12  (E,  F,  G,  H)].  It  is  only  neces- 
sary to  assume  that  12  includes  E,  F,  G  and  H  compend- 

^  'ously,  and  all  goes  most  smoothly.  Other  arrangements 
are  also  possible — «.  g.  the  first  half  may  b^  varied  to 
I,  2,  A,  B,  C,  3,  4,  5,  6,  or  to  1,  2,  A,  3,  B,  C,  4,  5,  6 ;  and 
the  second  half  to  9,  10,  D,  11  [12— (E,  F,  G,  H)],  or 
even  to  9,  10,  D,  E,  F,  G,  half  H,  11,  half  H— 12.  lu 
the  face  of  so  many  possible  harmonizations  it  certainly 
cannot  be  asserted  that  harmony  is  impossible. 

*  Thus  the  account  in  the  one  of  the  annunciation  to 


INSPIRATION.  59 

And  when  it  is  added  that  the  choice  of  the  ma- 
terial which  each  writer  has  made  can  in  each 
incident  be  shown  to  have  arisen  directly  out  of 
the  purpose  of  the  writer,  it  may  be  seen  what  a 
load  the  assertion  of  disharmony  must  carry. 

Joseph,  and  that  in  the  other  of  that  to  Mary,  which  are 
often  said  to  be  irreconcilable  with  one  another,  actually 
prove  each  other's  truth.  Both  assume  exactly  the  same 
facts  at  their  bases — viz.  that  Mary  conceived  a  child 
snpernaturaliy,  and  remained  a  virgin  while  becoming 
a  mother.  Moreover,  if  Luke's  narrative  be  true,  then 
something  like  what  Matthew  records  must  have  hap- 
pened ;  and  if  Matthew's  be  true,  something  like  what 
Luke  records  must  have  happened.  Two  things  need- 
ed explanation:  why  Mary  was  not  crazed  at  finding 
herself  so  strangely  with  child,  and  how  Joseph,  be- 
ing a  just  man,  could  have  taken  her,  in  that  condi- 
tion, to  wife.  Luke's  narrative  explains  the  first,  but 
leaves  the  other  unexplained ;  Matthew's  explains  the 
second,  but  leaves  the  first  unexplained.  It  is  ad- 
mitted that  there  was  no  collusion  here.  How  does 
it  happen,  then,  that  the  two  so  imply  one  another? 
Again,  Matthew  doe?  not  mention  where  Jesus'  parents 
lived  before  his  birth,  but  only  states  that  after  that 
birth  they  intended  to  live  in  Bethlehem,  and,  after 
having  been  deterred  from  that,  chose  Nazareth.  Now, 
why  this  strange  choice?  Luke,  and  Luke  alone,  sup- 
plies the  reason :  Nazareth  was  their  old  home.  Still, 
again,  that  Luke  calls  Mary  Joseph's  "betrothed" 
in  ii.  5  is  not  only  remarkable,  but  totally  inexplicable 
from  Luke :  we  can  only  understand  it  when  we  revert 


60  INSPIEATIOX. 

The  asserted  contradiction  between  Acts  and 
Galatians  is  already  crumbling  of  its  own  weight. 
Thus  Keim,  certainly  no  very  "  apologetic  "  critic, 
has  shown  very  clearly  that  the  passage  in  Gala- 
tians has  suffered  much  eis-egesis  in  order  to  make 
out  the  disharmony,*  and  sober  criticism  will 
judge  that  even  he  has  done  inadequate  justice 
to  the  subject.  We  cannot  enter  into  details  in 
80  broad  a  question :  it  will  be  sufficient,  how- 
ever, to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  no  dis- 
harmony can  be  made  out  unless — (1)  Violence 
be  done  to  the  context  in  Galatians,  where  Paul 
professes  to  be  giving  an  exhaustive  account, 
not  of  his  visits  to  Jerusalem,  btU  of  his  op- 
portunities to  learn  from  the  apostles.  Any 
visit  undertaken  at  such  a  time  as  to  furnish  no 
such  opportunity  (and  Acts  xii.  was  such)  ought, 
therefore,  to  have  been  omitted.  (2)  Convenient 
forgetfulness  be  exercised  of  the  fact  that  while 
the  context  shows  that  Paul  uses  "  apostles  "  in 
the  narrow  sense  in  Gal  i.  19,  yet  this  is  not 
true  of  Acts  ix.  27 ;  but,  as  Luke's  usage  shows, 
the  contrary  may  very  well  be  true  (Acts  xiv. 
4,  14).  So  that  it  is  in  no  sense  inconsistent  for 
Paul   to  say  that  he  saw  but  one  apostle,  and 

to  Matt.  i.  25  and  the  preceding  verses.    These  are  bnt 
samples. 

*  In  Aus  der  Urchristenthum  (1878). 


IKSPrRATION.  ^1 

Luke  that  he  saw  several.  (3)  Misuuderstand- 
ing  be  fallen  into  as  to  the  nature  of  the  "  de- 
cree "  of  Acts  XV.  20,  and  its  binding  force  to 
churches  not  yet  formed  and  not  parties  to  the 
compromise.  (4)  Misrepresentation  be  ventur- 
ed as  to  the  testimony  of  Galatians  as  to  Paul's 
relations  to  the  Twelve,  which  Paul  represents 
to  have  been  most  pleasant  (Gal.  ii.  3,  7-10),  but 
which  are  made  out  to  have  been  unpleasant 
through  misinterpretation  of  phrases  in  Gal.  il 
2j  3,  4,  6,  9,  etc.  (5)  Incredible  pressure  of  the 
detailed  language  of  both  Galatians  and  Acts  be 
indulged  in.  (6)  And,  finally,  a  tacit  denial  be 
made  of  the  possibility  of  truth  subsisting 
through  differences  in  choice  of  incidents  aris- 
ing from  the  diverse  points  of  view  of  the  two 
writers.  In  other  words,  an  unbiased  compari- 
son of  the  two  accounts  brings  out  forcibly  the 
fact  that  there  is  no  disharmony  between  them 
at  all.  Taking  these  examples  as  samples  (and 
they  are  certainly  fair  samples),  it  is  as  clear  as 
daylight  that  no  single  case  has  as  yet  been  ad- 
duced where  disharmony  is  a  necessary  conclu- 
sion. Therefore  all  charges  irom  this  side  fall 
to  the  ground. 
9 


62  INSPIRATION. 


CORRECT  APPLICATION  OF  THE  OLD 
TESTAMENT. 

3.  Another  favorite  charge  against  the  exact 
truth  of  the  New-Testament  Scriptures  is  drawn 
from  the  use  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  New, 
and  especially  the  phenomena  of  its  quotation. 
Here  also,  however,  most  of  the  objections  urged 
prove  nothing  but  a  radical  lack  of  clear  think- 
ing on  the  part  of  those  who  bring  them.  For 
instance,  Dr.  Davidson  argues  *  that  the  verbal 
variation  which  the  New-Testament  writers  al- 
low themselves  in  quoting  the  Old  Testament  is 
conclusive  against  verbal  inspiration,  for  "the 
terms  and  phrases  of  the  Old  Testament,  if 
literally  inspired,  were  the  best  that  could  have 
been  adopted,"  and  therefore  the  New-Testament 
writers  "  should  have  adhered  to  the  ipsissima 
verba  of  the  Holy  Spirit  (seeing  they  were  the 
best)  as  closely  as  the  genius  of  the  Hebrew  and 
Greek  languages  allowed."  Here,  however,  a 
false  view  of  inspiration  is  presupposed,  and 
also  a  false  view  of  the  nature  and  laws  of  quo- 
tation. Inspiration  does  not  suppose  that  the 
words  and  phrases  written  under  its  influeuce  are 
the  best  possible  to  express  the  truth,  but  only 
that  they  are  an  adequate  expression  of  the 
*  Hevmeneutics,  p.  513- 


INSPIRATION.  63 

truth.      Other  words    and    phrases    might  be 
equally  adequate — might  furnish  a  clearer,  more 
exact,  aud  therefore  better,  expression,  especial- 
ly of  those  truths  which  were  subordinate  or  in- 
cidental for  the  original  purpose  of  the  writing. 
Nor  is  quotation  to  be  confounded  with  transla- 
tion.    It  does  not,  like  it,  profess  to  give  as  ex- 
act a  representation  of  the  original,  in  all  its 
aspects  and  on  every  side,  as  possible,  but  only 
to  give  a  true  account  of  its  teaching  in  one  of 
its  bearings.     There  is  thus  always  an  element 
of  application  in  quotation ;  and  it  is  therefore 
proper  in  quotation  so  to  alter  the  form  of  the 
original  as  to  bring  out  clearly  its  bearing  on  the 
one  subject  in  hand,  thus  throwing  the  stress'  on 
the  element  in  it  for  which  it  is  cited.     This 
would  be  improper  in  a  translation.     The  laws 
which  ought  to  govern  quotation  seem,  indeed,  to 
have  been  very  inadequately  investigated  by  those 
who  plead  the  New-Testament  methods  of  quo- 
tation against  inspiration.     We  can  pause  now 
only  to  insist — (1)  That  quotation,  being  essen- 
tially different  from  translation,  any  amount  of 
deviation  from  the  original,  in  form,  is  thorough- 
ly allowable,  so  long  as  the  sense  of  the  original 
is  adhered  to ;  provided  only  that  the  quoter  is 
not  professing  to  give  the  exact  form  ;  (2)  That 
any  adaptation  of  the  original  to  the  purpose  in 


64  INSPIBATION. 

hand  is  allowable,  so  loDg  as  it  proceeds  by  a 
true  exegesis,  and  thus  does  not  falsify  the  orig- 
inal ;  (3)  That  any  neglect  of  the  context  of  the 
original  is  allowable,  so  long  as  the  purpose  for 
which  the  quotation  is  adduced  does  not  imply 
the  context,  and  no  falsification  of  sense  is  in- 
volved. In  other  words,  briefly,  quotation  ap- 
peals to  the  sense,  not  the  wording,  of  a  previous 
document,  and  appeals  to  it  for  a  definite  and 
specific  end;  any  dealing  with  the  original  is 
therefore  legitimate  which  does  not  falsify  its 
sense  in  the  particular  aspect  needed  for  the 
purpose  in  hand.*  The  only  question  which  is 
relevant  here,  then,  is.  Do  the  New-Testament 
writers  so  quote  the  Old  Testament  as  to  fal- 
sify it? 

Many  writers  who  have  pleaded  the  phenom- 
ena of  the  New  Testament  against  verbal  in- 
spiration yet  answer  this  question  in  the  nega- 

*  Still  further :  the  amount  of  freedom  with  which  a 
document  is  dealt  with  will  be  greater  in  direct  propor- 
tion to  the  thoroughness  with  which  it  is  understood. 
If  a  quoler  feels  doubtful  as  to  his  understanding  of  it, 
he  will  copy  it  word  for  word ;  if  he  feels  sure  he  'un- 
derstands it  fully  and  thoroughly,  he  will  allow  himself 
great  freedom  in  his  use  of  it;  and  if  he  is  the  author 
of  the  original  document,  still  more.  If  he  is  conscious 
of  having  supernatural  aid  in  understanding  it,  doub^ 
less  the  amount  of  freedom  would  be  greatest  of  all. 


INSPIRATION.  65 

tivfc.  Tims,  Mr.  Warington  admits  that  there 
are  "  no  really  inapposite  quotations " — "  the 
pertinency  of  the  quotations  .may  be  marred  by 
their  inaccurate  citation,  but  pertinent,  notwith- 
standing, they  always  are.  In  a  word,  while  .  .  . 
the  letter  is  often  faulty,  the  spirit  is  always 
divinely  true."*  This  is  simply  to  yield  the 
only  point  in  debate.  Others,  however,  of  not 
such  clearness  of  sight,  do  not  scruple  to  assert 
that  the  New-Testament  writers  do  deal  so  loose- 
ly with  the  Old  Testament  as  to  fall  into  actual 
falsification,  and  this  mainly  in  two  particu- 
lars: they  quote  passages  in  a  sense  different 
from  that  which  they  bore  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  they  assign  passages  to  wrong  sources. 
As  an  example  of  those  who  make  the  first 
charge  we  may  take  Prof.  Jowett,  who  is  never 
.weary  of  repeating  it.  f  But  when  we  ask  for 
his  proof,  it  is  found  to  rest  on  four  false  assump- 
tions, tacitly  made :  that  difference  in  form  means 
difference  in  sense,  that  typology  is  a  dream,  that 
application  through  a  true  exegesis  is  illegiti- 
mate, and  that  all  adoption  of  language  binds 
one  to  its  original  sense.  Thus  Prof.  Jowett 
has    difficulty  in    finding    apposite    examples, 

*  Jnapiration,  p.  107. 

t  See  St.  FauCs  JEpp.,  etc.,  vol.  i.,  p.  353  sq. :  Lon- 
don,  1855. 

6» 


66  INSPIRATION. 

and  those  he  does  finally  fix  upow  fail  on  ex- 
amination.*    Dr.  Sanday,  in  his  excellent  class- 

*  The  following  are  his  examples :  Eom.  ii.  24, "  where 
the  Avords  are  taken  from  Isaiah,  but  the  sense  from  Eze- 
kiel."  Possibly  a  true  criticism ;  what  is  illegitimate  in  it? 
Note,  however,  that  this  is  "probably  not  a  formal  quota- 
tion, but  an  expression  of  Paul's  own  thought  in  Old-Tes- 
tament words,  and  hence  the  "  as  it  is  written  "  succeeds 
(not  precedes)  the  quotation ;  this  "  as  it  is  written  "  may 
therefore  refer  to  Isaiah  as  quoted,  or  to  Isaiah  and 
Ezekiel,  or  to  Ezekiel  alone,  now  remembered  by  the 
apostle.  (Compare  Beet  with  Philippi  Meyer  in.  loc.) 
Rom.  ix.  33,  where  only  a  composition  of  two  passages 
takes  place,  which  are  rightly  "  harmonized,"  as  Prof.  J. 
admits,  in  Christ.  1  Cor.  iii.  19,  where  the  words  are 
altered  from  the  Psalm  to  suit  the  context  indeed,  but 
also  in  direct  agreement  with  their  context  in  the  Psalm, 
so  that  no  alteration  in  sense  results.  Eora.  x.  11,  which 
is  called  an  "instance  of  the  introduction  of  a  word  [Traf] 
on  which  the  point  of  the  argument  turns,"  but  which 
is  simply  a  case  of  true  exegesis  and  application  to  the 
matter  in  hand.  The  same  passage,  and  without  the 
TTCf,  had  already  been  quoted  in  this  context  (ix.  33) ; 
Paul  now  requotes  it,  calling  attention  to  the  force  of  the 
unlimited  6  iriorevuv  by  emphasizing  its  sense  through  an 
introduced  Trdf,  and  confirming  his  interpretation  imme- 
diately by  an  additional  Scripture  (verse  13).  Compare 
Luke  xviii.  14,  as  given  in  Matt,  xxiii.  14,  as  an  exam- 
pie  of  like  explanation.  1  Cor.  wrr.  21,  which  is  ad- 
mitted to  be  a  case  "of  addition  rather  than  alteration," 
and  any  objection  to  which  must  rest  on  a  tacit  denial 
of  typology,  which  even  Meyer  admits  to  be  historically 


INSPIRATION.  67 

[ficatioD    of  New-Testament   quotations    as    to 

justifiable  here.  Rom.  x.  6-9,  presenting  alterationa 
which  "we  should  hesitate  to  attribute  to  the  apostle  but 
for  other  examples,  which  we  have  already  quoted,  of 
similar  changes,"  but  which,  even  if  considered  as  a 
quotation,  is  defensible  enough ;  then  how  much  more 
so  when  we  note  that  it  does  not  profess  to  be  a  quota- 
tion, and  is  probably  nothing  more  than  the  expression 
of  the  apostle's  thought  in  old  and  beloved  words! 
1  Cor.  XV.  45,  "  a  remarkable  instance  of  discrepancy 
in  both  words  and  meaning  from  Gen.  ii.  7."  Quite 
true,  and  therefore  neither  in  words  nor  meaning  taken 
from  Gen.  7.  Prof.  J.  has  simply  neglected  to  note  that 
the  quotation  extends  only  to  ^(Jaav,  (Cf.  Meyer  in  loc.) 
Kom.  X.  13,  where  the  charge  of  change  of  meaning 
rests  only  on  a  misunderstanding  of  Mai.  i.  2,  3.  Eom. 
iii.  10  sq.,  "a  cento  of  quotations  transferred  by  the 
apostle  [from  their  original  narrow  reference]  to  the 
world  in  general."  As  if  Eccles.  vii.  21,  Ps.  xiii.  (xiv.) 
12  were  not  already  as  universal  as  anybody  could  make 
them,  and  as  if  the  choice  of  passages  throughout  was 
not  admirably  adapted  to  Paul's  purpose,  which  was  to 
prove  that  all  men  are  sinners — yes,  even  the  Jews. 
Rom.  xii.  20,  which  requires  no  remark.  And  finally 
six  allegories,  which  are  immediately  admitted  not  to  be 
allegories  in  the  only  sense  of  the  word  which  would  be 
to  their  disadvantage — i.  e.  in  the  sense  of  an  interpre- 
tation which  treated  the  literal  sense  of  the  words  as 
unimportant,  in  which  sense  of  the  word  no  allegory 
occurs  in  the  New  Testament.  These  "allegories"  are, 
Bome  of  them,  simple  illustrations,  some  typical  inter* 
pretatlons. 


68  INSPIEATION. 

their  form  *  cites  two  passages  only  m  hich  can 
be  plausibly  asserted  to  be  cases  of  mistaken 
ascription — viz.  Mark  i.  2  and  Matt,  xxvii.  9, 
10.  The  first  of  these  ought  not  to  present 
any  difficulty.  The  form  of  the  sentence  shows 
that  the  actual  words  of  the  citation  are  paren- 
thetical in  essence:  Mark  declares  that  John 
came  preaching  in  accordance  with  a  prophecy 
of  Isaiah,  and  then  inserts,  parenthetically,  the 
words  referred  to,  adding  also  a  parallel  proph- 
ecy of  Malachi.  That  he  gives  more  evidence 
than  he  promised  ought  surely  to  be  no  objec- 
tion ;  it  is  enough  that,  having  promised  a 
prophecy  from  Isaiah,  he  does  give  it.  This 
is  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  the  prophecy 
quoted  from  Malachi  is  actually  based  on,  and 
largely  drawn  out  of,  Isaiah,  so  that  Isaiah  is 
actually  the  ultimate  source  of  both  the  proph- 
ecies given,  and  that  from  Malachi  can  be  right- 
ly looked  upon  as  simply  a  further  explanation 
of  what  is  essentially  Isaiah's.  The  quotation  in 
Matt,  xxvii.  9,  10,  on  the  other  hand,  docjs  pre- 
sent a  difficulty,  and  is  indeed,  in  whatever  as- 
pect it  be  looked  upon,  a  very  puzzling  case.  It 
presents  the  extreme  limit  of  paraphrase  of  the 
original,  and  it  is  exceedingly  difficult  to  assign 
all  its  parts  to  their  proper  originals.  It  is  plain, 
*  Gospels  in  the  Second  Century,  pp.  16-25. 


INSPIRATION.  69 

however,  that  Zech.  xi.  13  was  strongly  coloring 
the  writer's  thoughts  when  he  wrote  it.  Yet  he 
ascribes  it  to  Jeremiah.  Here,  it  is  said,  is  a 
clear  case  of  erroneous  ascription.  This  judg- 
ment, however,  takes  no  account  of  the  exceed- 
ing difficulty  of  ascribing  the  words  actually 
quoted  to  Zechariah  alone.  There  seem  to  be 
but  three  ways  in  which  the  passage  can  be 
plausibly  understood,  and  no  one  of  these  implies 
an  error  on  Matthew's  part.  We  may  either  (1) 
understand  the  words  as  a  very  free  paraphrase 
of  Zech.  xi.  13,  and  then  appeal  to  the  fact  that 
in  the  Talmudic  arrangement  Jeremiah  stood 
first  in  the  "  book  of  the  prophets,"  so  that  Jere- 
miah here  stands  as  general  title  for  the  whole 
book — with  Lightfoot,  Scrivener,  Cook,  Schaff- 
Riddle,  etc  ;  or  (2)  take  the  reference  in  v.  9  as 
intended  for  Jer.  xviii.,  xix. — apart  from  which 
passage,  indeed,  the  quotation  following  cannot 
be  understood — and  suppose  the  quotation  itself 
to  be  deflected  to  the  words  of  Zechariah,  so  that 
the  passage  becomes  analogous  to  Mark  i.  2,  and 
is  meant  to  call  attention  to  both  Jeremiah  and 
Zechariah  —  with  (in  general)  Hengstenberg, 
Hofmann,  Thrupp,  Fairbairn,  etc,;  or  (3)  we 
may,  with  Lange,  find  the  originals  of  the  words 
in  four  passages  in  Genesis,  Zechariah  and  Jer- 


70  rNSPIRATIOX. 

emiah,  the  key  to  the  whole  being  Jer.  xxxii.  6-: 
8.  Whichever  of  these  views  may  be  accepted 
is  of  uo  moment  so  far  as  the  present  question 
is  concerned ;  each  alike  is  consistent  with  the 
evangelist's  truth,  and  therefore  with  his  in- 
spiration. 

With  these  examples  we  must  close.  It  is 
only  necessary  to  add  the  caution  that  the  pas- 
sages dealt  with  are  supposed  by  Mr.  Jowett  and 
Dr.  Sanday  to  be  the  most  striking  and  difficult 
ones  that  could  be  put  to  the  apologist  out  of  the 
two  hundred  and  seventy-eight  quotations  which 
the  Kew  Testament  makes  from  the  Old.  It  is 
surely  not  presumptuous,  then,  to  assert  that  Mr. 
AVarington's  wisdom  is  apparent,  and  that  it  is 
true  that  the  New-Testament  quotations  always 
preserve  the  ^n^e  of  the  Old-Testament  pas- 
sages. 

And  with  this,  this  paper  must  close.  It  has 
been  possible,  of  course,  to  examine  only  sam- 
ples of  critical  objection.  But  those  that  have 
been  examined  are  samples,  and  have  been  select- 
ed wholly  in  the  interests  of  the  objection.  These 
laid,  therefore,  and  all  are  laid.  The  legitimate 
proofs  of  the  doctrine,  resting  primarily  on  the 
claims  of  the  sacred  writers,  having  not  been 
rebutted  by  valid  objections,  that  doctrine  stands 


...A 


INSPIRATION.  7i 

doubly  proved.  Gnosis  gives  place  to  epignosis, 
faith  to  rational  conviction,  and  we  rest  in  the 
jo}iul  and  unshaken  certainty  that  we  possess  a 
Bible  written  by  the  hands  of  men  indeed,  but 


^.     a'lso\  graven  with  the  finger  of  God. 


Princeton  Theological  Seminanr  Libraries 


1    1012   01245  6804 


DATE  DUE 


W 


HIGHSMITH  #45115 


